Nate Opgenorth

i also came accross 4000 feet of color exr 7244 kodak stock.it is a shame to let all that new film go to waste,,im willing to shoot with it also in my cp16r 16mm.kodak told me it is indeed around 5 EI and shoot in lots of day light with a 85 wratten or double the filter in camera.it is a very contrasty film when shot out of camera.so,alot of post proceesing will have to be done and maybe just go black and whte with it.maybe good for tersting to find out what best type of lighting,i would use bright day light and artificial lighting on subjects.needs lot of lighting.maybe it will come out ok and flat color in post to work with.ill post when im done testing this film in 1 weeks or so.

Did you ever get a chance to test it out? I'd be curious to see what it looks like...damn though that sounds the a prime canidate for photographing the sun or like the other poster said desert during daylight, no ND filters on a nice giant aperture lens like oh say a Vantage T1 :D

I saw this thread: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?s=1c2ca0bd1a2159d4d0a34cbd6d9102cb&showtopic=12419&page=2

Among many others on the internet. I get the jist of it but I didn't want to base my research off circa 2006 data since film is uh on life support or at least was but still. I'm curious about using Eastman Double-X 5222 in my 35mm SLR, the reason I ask is because when I saw the movie Raging Bull I realized that those fight scenes in the ring were easily the most beautiful thing I've ever seen...now I realize that I'm probably not going to get the look perfect but I love the look of the stock in general and was wondering if I could use it for stills. I know its not designed for print but I could get it scanned just like digital intermediate process and work with it. If its too much of a hassle to shoot 5222 in an SLR then I would certainly be open to similar black and white film for still 35mm but allot of the black and white I see just doesn't quite look like Double-X 5222, especially from movies like Raging Bull!

I hear there is some very noticeable gopro footage in the scene with the river barrels.

I suspect that Peter Jackson is one of those filmmakers who is just bored of shooting mountains of film stock and is excited by the new world of digital cameras and wants to play with them.

 

I wonder if one day, if film is still around, whether people will get bored of shooting on video and want to shoot film instead because they have never had the chance to try it before!

 

Freya

Same with Michael Mann....I'm not sure how he went from making a movie as great looking and awesome as "Heat" and then makes a movie about John Dillinger with a High Definition Camera and makes it look all videoy (I loved the story just the cinematography was bad) and don't get me started with Miami Vice....although I love Collateral's look. Humans often do things just to be different for a multitude of reasons, I just hope they can realize when a journey is less about style and more about switching it up just to switch it up they can say "Jeez maybe I should go with what looks like cinema".

It really is just for monitoring. I am not even positive if you can turn off the overlays, but it certainly isn't designed for the whole recording (debayer comes to mind ect). Plus, then you'd have to factor in the costs of an external recorder.

All that said, it almost always comes down to the look and budget of the project. You may be able to get away with it just fine, or you may not. Though-- it should be mentioned, for the price of a week's worth of rentals on say a scarlet, you could probably buy a black magic pocket camera with enough kit to get by and avoid (somewhat) a frankienmonster of a camera system.

Yeah I probably wouldn't rent a Scarlet if it summed up to the price of a Blackmagic camera or say an FS100 with an external recorder....I'm just saying that one of these days I want to get my feet wet with RED on a project even if I only have the camera rental for 2 days I'd like to get the experience...by no means am I saying its the only option I view. The Blackmagic cameras are very affordable and I love their features, I just have to sort of wait for them to be available in my area (I live in Upstate NY and not NYC so its harder to find this stuff). As for a frankenmonster camera setup, thats not fun but ultimately the only thing I care about is the final product and if its getting the job done proper.

The gear game is a dangerous career and financial pit.

 

It depends on how you want to do business:

Do you want to be a Cinematographer or do you want to be a rental house?

What kind of jobs do you want to do?

 

Owning a camera will probably get you work in the short run. That work will be among circles that expect you to have a camera and bring it along for free or at a discount in order to get the job. As such, they only see you as a means to cheap gear. Once your camera falls out of fashion, they will hire someone else who owns the flavor of the month.

 

Sell yourself as a cinematographer - someone who can create the image with the tools and budget available - you'll have a lot more longevity.

With all do respect and without sounding snobby I really don't need a gear game sit down/lecture...not planning on buying a RED Camera anytime soon and my first goal is to move closer to the city where I can can simply be surrounded by people who are super creative and smarter than me! I know about the "Do you want to be a Cinematographer or run a rental house?" question as I'm always reading up on these types of things. I'd be lying if I said I didn't have some pretty strong gear lust towards RED cameras but like I said I don't plan on purchasing one as I don't have $10K let alone $25K to blow on a set up...I'm talking purely rental uses and I know the craft matters more than the camera and want to be known as someone who is versatile and not someone people go "Oh lets use that guy for his camera stuff!", I do know of people who own equipment that are perfectly fine with being used for it but I have seen people buy expensive things only to realize they have to sell them months later. I'm very careful by nature.

Well yes, on the whole it'll save you space in post production. However, it kind of defeats the purpose of shooting raw in the first place-- hence it'd make more sense to originate on prores, generally and probably save yourself a bunch of money in paying for the time to do the conversions, plus the media on the days and the the other media you'd need to store the pro-res on and back up before you erase the raws-- if that makes sense.

It would make sense to originate in ProRes but the RED Epic doesn't allow for that unless you use an external recorder right? And the idea of using an external recorder from say the SDI out of a RED seams somewhat odd, is the signal from the SDI output even designed for capture? It seams like its soley for monitoring....this is assuming RED's have a normal SDI output (which I believe they do but I'm not 100% sure). The reason I asked the somewhat strange question is if you went to a rental house and had the option of say a Canon 7D and a RED Scarlet you might feel the Canon is not enough for your project (Not going trying to debate the merits of gear lust over the craft of film making just an example) but the RED on the other hand is too much since the workflow is not in your budget but at the same time the RED offers the quality you want regardless of resolution. I just ask because there are always plenty of VERY tempting Scarlet and Epic deals hanging from low branches in front of me but only just now am I seeing intermediate camera options like the FS100 being more available in my area.

Well it'll still cost you time and storage to even hold the red files before you convert them-- that becomes the primary problem. Also on set, you get stuck downloading tons and tons of data. The same problem happens with the black magics when shooting raw-- hence why I tend to shoot prores, unless I really need, and production can really handle shooting around 1TB/day (or more sometimes off of the 2.5K)

Yeah I realize that...I've shot RAW but not on the RED cameras, although I have worked with RED Footage but just sample footage but overall would the coversion to ProRes save space in post production overall? ProRes HQ is a great codec, even regular ProRes, but yeah I'm familiar with the Blackmagic workflow. At least with RED you can choose the compression ratio, I'd likely shoot 18:1 for most of the stuff with 8:1 or 3:1 for critical scenes, thats how I use RAW lately on other cameras, shoot regular codecs for the majority and scenes that I anticipate to need a little bit more I shoot in RAW.

Sorry to necropost but I have some questions and I didn't want to open a new thread....People say they fear RED for the massive files and well...thats resonable! BUT is it wrong to rent say a Scarlet or even an Epic and following the shoot convert straight to ProRes at a lower resolution like 3840x2160 instead of 5K or now 6K? People seam to say that defeats the purpose of RED but with the Alexa so many shoots are ProRes only and honestly I would rather just have a nice 200mbps+ codec over dealing with massive storage needs of RAW. Reason I ask is because it seams Alexa = more expensive than RED to rent but costs of post production are cheaper than RED, and RED = cheap to rent but costs of post production can be potentially disastrous. The jump from 2K/1080p to 4K was cool but it was pretty insane on the storage requirements which I didn't fully grasp until I went ahead and did a 30 minute piece at 4K and while my machine kept up with the renders my hard drives were being eaten alive!

35mm film projectors have an anamorphic or "scope" matte / mask for the gate, just like the 1.85 matte, except that the anamorphic matte is taller than 1.85, it still covers over the soundtrack stripe and nearly touches the next frame at the top & bottom, roughly 1.20 : 1 in shape.

 

When 1.37 Academy came out in 1932, lenses on cameras had to be shifted over (or the movement was shifted over) so that the optical center of the lens matched the offset area on the negative, shifted over to make room for an optical soundtrack on the print contact-printed off of the negative. Some people also, at that time, made smaller gates for the cameras that exposed only the Academy area, but other cameras were left with the larger silent (full) aperture gates -- you didn't really need to mask the negative in camera since the projector would mask the image later to 1.37, or you could print a 1.37 Academy hard matte into the image.

 

Today, since most 4-perf 35mm cameras have to be converted at the rental houses back and forth between standard 35mm and Super-35, most of them use a full aperture gate in the camera and just shift the optical center of the lens between standard (sound) and Super (silent). So if you shoot standard 35mm anamorphic or 1.85, you are actually exposing some image in the soundtrack area on the left, but often that area isn't usable, either because the image is obviously framed to the right or because part of the matte box or a flag is encroaching on that area. But some people, now that D.I.'s have become the norm, will shoot anamorphic with the lens centered for Super-35 and just crop both sides to get 2.40 from 2.66. I think maybe "Wolf of Wall Street" did this since they were switching from Super-35 to anamorphic. "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty" might have done this too, since they were switching between Super-35, 2X anamorphic and 1.3X anamorphic. But using the Super-35 center does make a straight contact print for release in anamorphic out of the question, you then have to go through a D.I.

 

As for releasing a 2.66 image in UltraPanavision 70, that projection format doesn't exist anymore. Straight 5-perf 70mm spherical is 2.20 : 1 -- hardly anyone can project anamorphic 70mm. So if you shot 2.66, you'd have to letterbox that on a standard 70mm print or 35mm scope print, or a 2K or 4K DCP.

 

8-perf 35mm 1.5X anamorphic was called Technirama and was used for movies like "Spartacus" and "El Cid". Here's a frame from "El Cid" and you can see the 1.5X anamorphic bokeh:

 

 

If you want to learn more about the lenses used, google "Delrama anamorphic"

Thanks a bunch David! I find it interesting when production's mix formats, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty looks like it will be interesting to see how the image looks. Does anyone make straight contact prints anymore? I always thought today with exceptions like Chris Nolan/Wally Pfister movies the preference was to do a DI and then do a film out...

Alright I think I've read the history of anamorphic about 9000x (half of which has been elegantly laid out by David Mullen thank you!) but there are still some ideas that are fuzzy to me that I'd like to get cleared up as well as questions about some older formats in history that fascinate me. Anamorphic is definitely making a come back, I thought it was small but then I saw 3 different commercials in 2.35:1 with oval bokeh and squeezed backgrounds…whether they were actually using anamorphic glass or a flare/bokeh adapter is up for debate but when you start seeing anamorphic looking TV commercials you know something is happening!

-1.33 went to 1.37:1 because of sound but what I don't understand is why when you shoot 35mm anamorphic you shoot a 1.18:1 space….why didn't they just make a 1.75x anamorphic lens instead of a 2x anamorphic lens if they intended 2.35:1 from the start? I know that the original intention was 2.55:1 and then 2.35:1 and then final 2.39:1 but it still is sort of fuzzy…

-I have some footage from an Arri Alexa 4:3 that was shot using a Zeiss Master Anamorphic, it stretches out to 2.39:1 but still looks squeezed, using some circular areas in the footage and the general shape of peoples faces I stretched it out to 2.66:1 and it seamed more proper looking. Are you supposed to crop 4:3 anamorphic footage to 1.19:1 before you unstretch or is it okay to crop to 2.39:1 after unstretching? I've heard mixed views on this…it seams like it wouldn't matter...

-What is an anamorphic film gate? I have an idea what a film gate is but I recently heard someone say that their "anamorphic film gate broke". Is this necessary for shooting on anamorphic? Is it like ground glass for framing or something?

-Has anyone shot anamorphic 35mm using the whole space to go from 1.33:1 to 2.66:1 or even 1.37:1 to 2.76:1 for a Ultra Panavision 70mm film out? I think it would be interesting to shoot full aperture using the whole area (if possible) using 2x anamorphics if Ultra Panavision 70 was still around…if so would the resolution be comparable to regular 35mm anamorphic 70mm blow ups or what? I'm guessing this is theoretical but maybe their is an example of an Ultra Panavision 70 film like this?

-There was a movie that was shot on VistaVision with anamorphic lenses, it had to be a 50s era movie since that was when VistaVision was actually used outside VFX work but they used a 1.5x squeeze lens. Is there any info on the type of anamorphic glass that could cover 8-perf 35mm? What about those anamorphics for Ultra Panavision that were used on a film or two that squeezed 2.76:1 onto 2.20:1? I checked the widescreen museum's website and Panavision History but couldn't find much…When shooting flat VistaVision I've heard they used Nikon stills glass…was this glass that was converted for the proper mount, distance markings, no breathing, etc. or was it basic stills glass? I like checking IMDB for what equipment is used but older films only list very small details at times.

Thank you for those that respond to any questions….I find anamorphic formats and large format photography very interesting and its sort of sad to see it die off since I'm not in a position to test some of this out before its gone forever so any answers are appreciated. I know I nag David Mullen and a few others allot so if you respond to this in advance just know its really appreciated!

Sorry to necropost but sort of a thread of interest for me.

My only real opinion on this revolves around the problematic nature of focus pulling on big sensors.

 

If you want to set up shots which use depth of field, which is currently fashionable and in any case always a nice choice to have, you will almost by definition be putting yourself in a situation where focus pulling matters.

 

Focus pulling HD video on 2/3" video cameras is difficult.

 

Focus pulling on 16mm film, micro four-thirds video, or something like a Blackmagic cinema camera, is very difficult.

 

On 35mm, APS-C or similar sensors, it's so hard they usually employ someone whose sole job it is, and give him a lot of time and technology to get it right, and still expect to blow one take in three when it gets particularly taxing.

 

On full-frame DSLRs, Vistavision, 65mm, or equivalent, focus pulling is a sort of Zen meditative pursuit that's been known to drive people completely underside pumpernickel intrinsic caboose caboose rumplestiltskin.

 

No, you don't want a full frame DSLR.

 

P

You wouldn't happen to be a focus puller would you? :D I get that focus pulling is hard but as David said you can stop down and up the ISO on something like a 5D Mk.III or D800....ISO 6400 on those cameras is pretty dang clean...besides focus pulling doesn't HAVE to be hard, I mean sure if you have some crazy shot where the camera operator and focus puller are on a track following a fight sequence moving back and forth with a one shot deal exploding car while using a 24-290 wide open at T/2.8 simaltanously doing a hitchcock zoom then yes you might just want to jump off a bridge or rent an Epic/Scarlet for the day :)

but I mean a full frame DSLR isn't that bad, the first time I used one I remember being at 28mm ƒ/4 and thinking "Holy crap this looks allot more than ƒ/4".

Maybe you or David could correct me but I think if you wanted to go for an anamorphic look without anamorphic glass you'd be a step ahead of APS-C/Super35 sensor cameras since you have 36mm horizontal which comes closer to 22mm 2x (for 2x anamorphics on Super35) vs 22-28mm APS-C shooting flat...Correct me if I'm wrong but the part I mentioned about anamorphic being 22mm x2 would mean that anamorphic 35mm has the equivelent DoF of a sensor/film plane that is 48mm horizontal? It would seam correct since a 2x 100mm anamorphic has the horizontal view of a 50mm but vertical view of a 100mm.

A 50mm is a 50mm is a 50mm. Doesn't matter if it is on a Super-8 camera or an IMAX camera, it's still a 50mm. One has to stop thinking of these focal lengths as having a specific view outside of the size of the target area that the image is projected onto. Even on a FF35 camera, the image projected from a 50mm lens is "cropped" -- it's cropped from a circle to a rectangle.

 

Yes, a still photographer generally is referring to the field of view of certain focal lengths on a FF35 camera, whereas most cinematographers think of the field of view of certain focal lengths in regards to the Super-35 frame, what still photographers used to call a "half-frame" (4-perf instead of 8-perf.)

 

Bresson used a FF35 still camera, 8-perf 35mm horizontal, with a 50mm lens... you'd need to use something more like a 32mm lens on a Super-35 camera to get a similar field of view.

 

Stopping thinking of it as "a 50mm becomes an 80mm on a cropped camera" because that just leads to confusion. A 50mm stays a 50mm on any camera. It just has a narrower view on a smaller format. Or to put it another way, the 50mm has a more telephoto image on a smaller format, a wider-angle image on a larger format. But it is still a 50mm.

I think this post should be stickied. I don't think people had this issue when they shot on Super16 or Super8 but then again I never shot on those formats when there was not digital around. Regardless I think it would be weird if for example Zeiss DigiPrimes put a FF35mm or S35mm equivelent on the barrel unless they already do that and I'm crazy. Generally speaking what I would use as a basis is whatever the diaganol size of the sensor is in milimeters should be the approximate "normal" lens on the format no?

I don't know but Denzil is quite the Actor....truly a talented guy and every role he's played its so realistic that I wonder if he actually struggled with alcoholism after watching "Man on Fire", "Flight" and pretty much anything else hes in. I'd love to meet him just to have a conversation because on and off the screen hes a real stand-up guy. I remember he was in a hospital for recovering soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen and he asked how much one of them cost to build and he just pulled out his check book, no words were exchanged...such a Denzel move.

The movie "Promised Land" was shot with the 1.3X Hawks on 4-perf 35mm for a 1.85 release.

Hmm I'll have to take a look at that. Looks interesting, even if it isn't I've been known to watch movies soley for the good or unique cinematography. Just curious do you have any thoughts on the look? Would it be something you'd be interested in shooting on a project or are you more of a spherical guy? It seams that their is a small resurgance of anamorphic and its got me excited as I simply love the look (when done well).

The pilot for this year's FX show "The Bridge" was shot with 2x anamorphics (don't know what kind) on the Alexa, I think, for 1.78.

I read about the series..looks VERY interesting...I'll have to hunt down a source to view it. Interesting approach..I honestly didn't expect to see these approaches used so its quite interesting and exciting to say the least!

Are their any movies/TV shows shot anamorphically in 1.78:1? This is probably confusing but I didnt have enough space to fully clarify. Are their any movies shot on say 4-perf with hawk v-lite 1.33x anamorphics to go from 1.33:1 (4:3) to 1.78:1 (16:9) / 1.85:1. I was thinking about this a few days ago, I sort of associate anamorphic with a certain time frame or at least the very obvious looks of C-Series. Hawks don't flare or look like C-series and they are 1.33x not 2x but I think it would be interesting to shoot a show for TV using something like an Arri Alexa 4:3 or 4-perf 35mm with 1.33x anamorphics to bring the aspect ratio to 1.78:1. I think for a show with a story based in the 70's, 80's, etc. this would make it look unique to other shows I would think. I think if you got the right film stock and/or color grade it would be an interesting look. Just some thoughts, so has anyone heard of this being done before? Anyone interested in the idea! I'm a die hard fan of 2.39:1 and anamorphic but I realize that 2.39:1 would be insane for TV production (unless your really balsy!) but at the same time I love anamorphic...of course you could crop anamorphic 2.39:1 I guess.....

True. Since we are talking about actual scannable images w/o any kind of analog equivalent to DRM, it would be hard for a studio to sell them. If someone got their hands on a theatrical print of Star Wars prior to the changes, I don't know if Lucas would be too keen on an ambitious fan getting that print telecined into HD and distributed into the ether.

Ah while I'm not a Star Wars aficionado I have had actual dreams of walking into my basement and discovering reels of my favorite and most beautiful movies with an Arri Scan next to them....back to reality!

 

Theoretically, a 4K digital projection (assuming a good/true projector) should look better than a 35mm print since at best the 35mm print is going to be from a 4K printer anyhow.

 

If you're talking about "The Master" where the entire process was photochemical, then a real print would win over a 4K projection, especially if you're talking about a 70mm print.

 

But, with a film like the Dark Knight rises where the actual master is a 4K digital file, there is no way a 35mm print could be "better". It's possible you like the look of it better. But, there is SURELY information lost in the translation from a 4K master to a 35mm print. Even if the digital master is 8K (which I doubt) the 4K projection should still be more true to the original digital file. If the 35mm print is better, then the projection or projectionist is faulty in some way. If you just "like" the look of the 35mm print better, it's probably because the softness and/or grain of the print film hides the pixels. But, technically, that's a fault of the film not showing the actual information as it was mastered.

I think Chris Nolan would have a heart attack if he didn't photochem finish.....actually I think Chris Nolan would have a heart attack if he thought anyone thought a 4K DI was "enough" :P I believe their is an ASC Magazine issue on the editing process for The Dark Knight Rises...actually it might be just Inception but regardless Chris Nolan has a pretty intense view on film and photochem process vs DI. Remember bits and pieces of the story and feeling very very very tiny compared to the kind of workflow he had rolling through!

Saw the trailer and I started to understand the responses here and else where...why not just do a sequal to District 9 or something? Either way Anamorphic Red Epic footage....interesting look in and of its self let alone everything else...

Late response but better late than never...

http://www.theasc.com/ac_magazine/November2012/TheMaster/page1.php

Just gonna leave that link there since it provides allot of details on the cinematography.

Good question. I guess I'd just really like to use 65mm, but I'll be the first one to admit that's a bad reason to choose any format. Even if I were able to justify using 65mm for a short, the problem with that is that there are no 70mm projectors around the festival circuit. Very few even project prints at all. Also the screens in the US are nowhere near as large as they once were (even the one at the Ziegfeld seems to have shrunk.) So with no 70mm projector and no giant screen to project the film onto, anything shot on 65mm film hoping for festival distribution is automatically relegated to the realms of HD video. You automatically lose the grandeur of the format that way.

That was another reason I was disappointed with The Master. P.T. Anderson didn't take full advantage of the format.

"I'd just really like to use 65mm" is a perfect excuse for a small project I think....I mean as long as style of the story its self wouldn't be destroyed by large format cinematography I think its a good choice. I can think of an example where 65mm would be bad (well allot of examples actually!) for the story's overally feel (of course thats subjective but think of your favorite grainy B&W movie thats just flat and stopped down but looks great and imagine it in clean 65mm...yeah). But to my main point I don't think the grandeur of the format is lost when its not projected in 70mm, the DoF characteristics, the lack of distortion on "wide" lenses, background compression, clean yet very celluloid look, etc. are very obvious looks to me. I feel like the look of larger sensor/film plane stuff makes it almost 3D, maybe from the depth of field but even in a scene where there is a bunch of DoF it just looks bigger! Wide and medium shots look much much grander and the perspective of everything else in relation to each other is obviously different. I don't think pixels can really take away from that unless you really really dump the quality down. Even at 1080p movies like The Master and The Dark Knight Rises the larger formats are just head over heals different than other movies. While 70mm projection would be preferred If I shot 65mm in a day where it was impossible to do anything other than Digital Intermediate I'd be pretty happy about it so long as I got a nice 4K+ scan, and I'm not a resolution Nazi I just think 65mm deserves at least 4K. P.T. Anderson didn't use the full 2.20:1 and preferred 1.85:1 (for the look of the era) but I still think it looked good. Personally I think something like 2.35:1 or pardon me 2.00:1 would have looked better.

Just saw this the other night, and while it wasn't my favorite PTA film, I loved the look of it. I thought David Mullen was right on about the look they got (40's & 50's large format documentary photography). I don't agree that THE purpose of large format film always has to be ultimate sharpness, there are other characteristics of it that are nice too look at as well, and it's always nice to see someone try something a little different visually and not adhere slavishly to any particular convention. The still photography that David was referencing is a very different look from what Ansel Adams, Edward Weston and the like were doing at the time, but they were both beautiful and valid approaches. I think we all have things we'd love to see in a movie theater, and if more films were being made with large format film, more of our particular likes might be satisfied. I for one would love to see more like this, maybe something like The Prestige done with some big cameras, maybe some black and white large format, some really gritty 16 or 35mm black and white, you get the idea. Mix it up, experiment, recreate older looks, just have fun and make something good. And I'm sure everyone here would pay good money to see a David Mullen western or sci-fi movie shot with large format! (Just now I was reminded of the first time I saw Casino Royale in the theater, and how badly I wanted to see the whole film shot like the first 5 minutes were. Wouldn't that be great?)

PS- I too loved Freddie's department store meltdown, the whole look of it was great! The lighting, the camera movement, the attention to detail in the store and the customer's clothes. And it made me want to track down a nice fast Aero Ektar lens for my Graflex, put a little tilt on it with the lens wide open on a few sheets of color film and make some dreamy images. Inspiring work by Mr. Malaimare.

Agreed it wasn't my favorite PTA film either. I loved the look and the colors were amazing and as David said the deep blues were beautiful. The Ansel Adams look was nothing I would have wanted in this film, none the less the Ansel Adams look is something that is of course a valid approach and wind numbingly beautiful in a different right. The Department store meltdown for me was great, I'm not sure whether it was the way it was shot vs just being in 65 or probably both but I loved it. I actually tracked a friend down and made him let me use his medium format camera!

The beginging of Casino Royale was pure gold for me though, I heard people complain in the theater when I saw it on launch day and I was just smiling widely like an idiot because it was beautiful, I would have loved to have seen it shot in that Black and White as well, that Eastmen Double-X gets me so good, I think I watched that intro more than a healthy amount of time prior to discovering Raging Bulls beautiful cinematography. I keep copies of films on a hard drive because whenever I need inspiration for a photo or an idea or just think of an awesome look I love to just relive it again.

Its not weird at all I'm really itching to see if the AG7200 could work on medium format film, that would be awesome.

Glad I'm not alone! I first thought of it when I saw people flocking to the AG7200 for DSLR video (unfortunately I was 2 years late, could have had one for $400> a few years ago >:\ ) and I wondered about stills since I always like anamorphic artifacts and wider aspect ratios. The AG7200 for stills on a 35mm would bring the aspect ratio to about 2.00:1 pretty cool stuff! Then I remembered some of the few movies like Ben-Hur and Lawrence of Arabia shot in Ultra Panavision 70 and after seeing The Dark Knight Rises I really loved the photochem finish and the anamorphic 35mm scenes stood out as shockingly beautiful.

One day me and a friend went on a shoot in an old factory and we got to the roof and you could see just miles and miles of highway and city and I told him to grab his Pentax 6x7 camera out, I felt like that square aspect ratio didn't do justice to the scenery...I researched and saw a few lone wolfs ask about anamorphic solutions on several forums and most people (even DP's) just replied "Crop the frame its got enough rez" and I get that, I mean when I saw for the first time a medium format negative it was quite shocking and then to see a shot from a Mamiya 6 drum scanned at 150MP's something like that and to go to a 100% view and see every single little detail resolved I realized how incredibly awesome larger formats can be. I think part of being a Photographer, DP or Director even is establishing a certain look, Chris Nolan and Wally Pfister together make beautiful movies (duh) and everyone knows it but when I watch any movie that those two made I recognize it, most likely from the mix of formats and the look.

I think people should be a bit more open to crazy ideas and at least TRY them! I think had I had the funds for the AG7200 at the time I would have bought it and thrown it on anything with a lens just to see how it looked because very often innovation is just stumbled upon. I love the look of anamorphic 70mm (although 2.75:1 is a tad bit too wide for my taste, nothing over 2.55:1 for me but I won't complain), it has a hint of that anamorphic look I love but the wide shots are so detailed it makes me feel silly inside! Theres allot you can do with ANY camera at ANY location to make an image but when I see a vast landscape I automatically think of large formats and I automatically think of anamorphic. Maybe someone will offer the AG7200 for rental and I'll rent a Pentax 645D and experiment with some 1.78:1 medium format prints! I'll probably get a few dirty looks from naysayers thinking I cropped, so Ill have to pull a JJ Abrams and have 3 or 4 people run out in front of the camera with flash lights to get some blue streaks (kidding).

In all seriousness though If you have the cash I would jump on the AG7200, I've seen a few excellent short films where it was used on the 5D Mk.II/III, 1D Mk.IV, Nikon D800 and a few others, pretty sure I saw some Super 16 footage as well. I had a few discussions with owners of it and asked about the difficulty of using it, some shots like macro shots were more difficult but a few sequences where you use spherical only and just crop isn't gonna hurt a film. Its nice because it can technically adapt to pretty much any lens with a 77mm diameter filter size, so I don't think you'd run into issues using it on larger format cameras, works great on the 5D which is a VistaVision sized frame (8-perf film equivalent). Close focus stuff is hard but you can use diopeters (sp?), even with the close focus issues I can't say I'd complain, I know the Panavision anamorphics had at one point issues with that. I know you can't go too wide on the focal length. I'd really like to see someone manufacture some affordable 1.33x adapters and lenses for the DSLR market...Hawk V-Lites are expensive from what I've heard too. I think 1.33x adapters would have great market potential too, Allot of 16:9 sensor cameras and allot of movies still in scope with a good amount of people who appreciate the anamorphic look. Also instead of converting 4-perf cameras to 3-perf you could throw on an adapter that wouldn't squeeze it all the way to 2.35:1 but only to 16:9~ then unsqueeze in the digital intermediate. Just my .02 cents....

I hate to necro post and revive a dead thread but are there any plans that anyone is aware (and privy to telling us) of more 1.33x squeeze or even 1.5x anamorphic lenses or better yet adapters that would be usable on a variety of platforms preferably DSLR's? I know about the Hawk V-lites and those got me excited but I don't see my self owning PL mount glass when I only own DSLR's....The AG7200 seams like the best choice but I'd preferably like to NOT spend more than 800 USD on an anamorphic lens/adapter....How hard would it be to make an anamorphic lens that didn't degrade quality substantially? I know I've seen guides for home theater projectors but I suppose thats a bit different? I'm asking because I'm sort of a nut for shooting in scope and shooting flat and then cropping just doesn't feel the same...I can't even find a place that'll rent AG7200's or Kowa's or Iscorama's...keep in mind I will be shooting on a full frame but have a APS-C DSLR for back up if I have no choice, hence why the AG7200 sounds nice! Always wanted to throw it on a variety of cameras like medium format stills, Super 8, etc. (I know I'm strange but this stuff is what I love more than anything!). Thanks in advance.

So lets say I were to do a film using a Canon 5D Mk.III (Most likely a Canon 6D but similar) and a Canon 7D (or other APS-C style camera) while using the Panasonic AG7200 anamorphic adapter (1.33x squeeze, so 1.78:1 to 2.35:1~). My thoughts were that since the adapter like many full purpose anamorphic lenses has trouble close focusing I could use regular spherical process to shoot macro shots and interiors with allot of close ups when using wider glass (under 35mm full frame/8-perf). I don't currently have an AG7200 to test some of this but I'm wondering if there are any examples of even say Super35 and 35 anamorphic in one film looking bad or great...I personally like the aesthetics of anamorphic even on shots where barrel distortion is VERY obvious (i.e.: Léon: The Professional, Heat [certain parts], and a few others)...My main idea behind this is thinking about Wally Pfisters Cinematography where he was mixing VistaVision (8-perf), Anamorphic 35mm, and 65mm together and it honestly looked great in The Dark Knight Rises, Inception, etc.

I have a xerox of that old article about the prototype 12-perf 35mm camera somewhere in my pile of papers. It was a cool idea, but required too much change in post infrastructure to support. Plus pulling 3X the amount of 35mm compared to 4-perf 35mm would make the costs of shooting 5-perf 65mm similar if not cheaper, and there's more post infrastructure for that format. Of course, 12-perf 35mm is a bigger negative than 5-perf 65mm:

 

12-perf 35mm: 56.01 x 24.92mm (my guess)

5-perf 65mm: 52.48 x 23.01mm

 

It's actually a resurrection of an idea attempted once before. Fred Waller, the inventor of Cinerama (which was made up of three 6-perf 35mm frames) tried to build a single 12-perf 35mm horizontal movement with a curved gate to replace the three-film Cinerama camera, but never quite finished the project before he died.

 

I think it would have been cool for some modern, quiet sync-sound 8-perf 35mm (VistaVision) cameras to be built in the style of an Arricam or Panaflex, a true "super" 35mm format. But in this day and age, I don't see a chance of that happening.

Hey David do you happen to still have that Xerox? If you do would you be willing to share it? Would appreciate it allot. I sort of have a fascination in this area and was going over all the unique formats I find interesting/love (i.e.: VistaVision, 35mm 2-perf, various large formats), I randomly thought of the idea of 12-perf 35mm! Well as Google revealed my mind did not invent the thought and it sure didn't get past the geniuses on here! I mostly lurk and post around when I can here, but I did happen to read allot of Paul Bruening's stuff and its a damn shame he's passed on. I always feel a little bad reviving an old thread when someone as unique as Mr. Bruening is no longer with us. Perhaps I'm getting nostalgic about film before it goes :/ Oh well...I can only dream of a digital sensor in the 48x20 range with DR similar to RED's new Dragon sensor now...Who knows maybe Ill invent one and start a line of sensors named after the unique film pioneers that thought of similar ideas years before.

A key grip friend of mine carries a 20 inch machete.

And believe me if you will, it proved itself very useful more than once!

Do I want to know what it was useful for? haha

Nope, but I'd love to. I was actually thinking about using it for a short film.

I was actually asking David. Curious about your idea none the less. Any specific reason you'd use 65mm for a short film? Don't need plot details or anything just curious what it is you like....

Side note: I find it strange that the Phantom 65 (4K version) doesn't see more use....I know its not true 65mm film but it does give unique DOF of the 65mm format AND it doubles as a high frame rate camera...not an established workflow for it maybe? Even that seams like a bad excuse...maybe I'll ask a rental house for reasons if no one can give me an idea.

Nope, but I'd love to. I was actually thinking about using it for a short film.

I was actually asking David. Curious about your idea none the less. Any specific reason you'd use 65mm for a short film? Don't need plot details or anything just curious what it is you like....

I saw the 70mm print today at the Ziegfeld and I noticed the very same jitter. Is that due to the projector, the width of the print, or the simple fact that my eyes have become accustomed to digital projection? I have a hard time believing it is the last since I never noticed such a pronounced jitter in all my years of filmgoing. And I think this was the first time I saw a projected 70mm print...

 

 

I think it was the projector. I read somewhere that in really bad cases with 35mm prints it really killed the resolution that could be seen. Haven't seen 70mm in quite some time...

I saw the 70mm print at the East Village Cinema in NYC. First off, when the projection started, I had to get used to the slight jitter during the brief titles, once the movie started I stopped thinking about it.

 

The 70mm image was masked to 1.85 or even less wide (it looked less wide to me, more like 1.66). An interesting choice which, in an odd way, made the movie seem more of the period, less modern. The fine-grained 65mm image and the very shallow focus also at times reminded me of some large format Kodachrome work of that period. At times, I also was reminded on the dye transfer print I saw of "The Thin Red Line", which had a period Kodachrome quality. Because of the natural soft light and shallow focus many times, and the cropped width, it wasn't a sort of "Lawrence of Arabia" kind of 70mm big screen look, more like a large format documentary color photo might look from the late 1940's, early 1950's.

 

I think the 65mm format captures some nice subtle color tones that smaller gauges have trouble resolving. Colors like the blue of the ocean were really rich, thick. The movie has a texture and beauty that seems hard for digital photography to capture. To me, large format film is the best of both worlds -- high resolution, fine grain, but film-like -- if only it wasn't so cumbersome to shoot and so expensive.

I think its sorta weird to shoot on 65mm and crop for 1.85:1. I love the crisp clarity of 65mm and I guess I sort of associate it with the 2.20:1 or less common 2.75:1 aspect ratio. I really really like large formats shallow focus and the grand size of it, I think the only other person "keeping 65mm alive" is probably Christopher Nolan. It'll be sad to see the format fade with the entire idea of celluloid :/ was out with a friend shooting medium format and some high quality 35mm a bit ago and the magic of it almost put my DSLR on the side line. Haven't seen the movie but mixing 65mm and 35mm is always smart and sensible, sometimes the grandeur of the 65mm format is overkill for certain scenes. I never can really get over the picture quality of movies like Lawrence of Arabia, 2001, etc.

I know its controversial and not always the best but I sort of always dreamed of a digital camera maybe by Arri or even RED that had a 36x24 or larger sensor, the 5D look is so pleasing artifacts aside, although I understand shallow depth of field is a real PITA when pulling focus in fast moving scenes and in general. Just about of curiosity have you ever shot 65mm?

4:3...I never liked the format, respect it but don't like it one bit. Shooting an older movie? Shoot 1.66:1, way better than a box sitting in my field of view. I'm forever a fan of scope, especially anamorphic scope, watch a movie like Heat and just seeing all that beautiful fine grain with those beautiful anamorphic "artifacts" gets me going. Maybe one day Vittorio Storaro's dream of 2:1 will be the standard ;)

You think all movies should be chopped up to fit the shape of your screen regardless of composition?

I sense tension with this...haha.

I really enjoyed watching The Dark Knight at Imax switching from wide-screen 'normal' to full-screen 65mm for the action sequences..

 

Why can't we all just live together in harmony B)

 

I'd love to see a movie shot in "Vertiscope" portrait framing (anamorphic sideways)

Oh I loved The Dark Knight switching back and forth, hardly annoying as I felt this feeling of the scene feeling more grand and then realized I was in a 65mm scene and then gently put back into 35mm...Christopher Nolan really knows what he wants and I can't imagine watching his work in some jammed up way like a 4:3 crop for the entire thing! Got allot of respect and love his views on film and CGI use.