Reuel Gomez

With Technicolor no longer processing film, I wonder how Nolan will get this film finished the way he prefers (photochemically)

I spoke to a person in the know from lets say the biggest camera equipment company there is about 2 months ago, yes film 35mm and 65mm .

Panavision? I could see him doing some stuff in IMAX as well.

I was watching a featurette on the Blu-Ray for Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter and I saw then using 435s for some high-speed shots and they mainly did it handheld/Steadicam. But from what I understand, the 435 wasn't designed for handheld/Steadicam and/or is too heavy for that purpose.

The Transformers movies deal with vertical subjects towering over people in 2.40.

Those were shot w/anamorphic lenses though. Although then again, the third one was shot on the F35, which has a 3-Perf sized sensor.

An A/C friend working on this film told me the Fuji Premier 18-85 T2 was used frequently along with the Leica primes and short Optimos.

 

Neal Norton

There are some slo-mo shots in the film, would he happen to know what camera was used for that?

I agree with Reuel, I felt it was better then the first. I also felt it took a more "serious" view on things sometimes (Especially the fathers death), probably because the plot focused on the "coming of age" and of personal responsibilities.

 

I don't know why Carrey refused to do any publicities, I think it's one of his best roles- some people don't even recognize him.

Couldn't have said it better on both counts, especially regarding Carrey. I honestly think this is his best performance so far period.

Maybe, one site says 1-95 fps for 5K ANA.

Does Epic Dragon do 120 fps in ANA mode?

Sure.

120 fps am I correct?

I know I'm probably alone, but I actually prefer this film to the first one. I just thought when someone like Dave's father died, you actually felt bad for him. As opposed to Big Daddy's death where I felt it was very cheesy. This was lensed by Tim Maurice-Jones and used Arri Alexa Studio/Plus cameras with Zeiss Master Primes, Angenieux Optimo lightweight zooms, and Fujinon Alura studio zooms. There are some slo-mo shots but I don't know what they used for that. Surprisingly, not only did Henry Jackman return as a composer, but Asa Shoul from Molinare returns as colorist.

If you shot spherical, you'd be able to shoot and use 5K raw, versus 2.88K raw on the Alexa going to a Codex.

 

During live-action production, an "efx" camera would mainly either be shooting background plates or people against green screens, or elements to be added to a composite -- the main advantage of shooting spherical at 5K raw full-frame (which is 1.9 : 1 on the Epic) would be the ability to zoom in and reposition the frame due to the extra resolution.

 

It meant more in the old film days of doing composites on an optical printer. Due to generational loss, the bigger-budgets movies would shoot anything that would get duped in post on a larger negative format, like VistaVision or 5-perf 65mm, both formats also having the advantage of not using anamorphic lenses, which make composite work harder and shooting miniatures harder. The idea being that a larger negative duped a few generations would intercut better with original 35mm negative, than if you had duped 35mm a couple of generations.

 

Once compositing became digital, using scanned footage, the grain/contrast increase from generational loss was less of an issue but there were still advantages to the larger negative formats -- the ability to avoid using anamorphic lenses for 2.40, the ability to do some reframing, etc. But generally then the larger format film cameras were saved for shots where the extra resolution or finer-grained was more advantageous, like wide shots, shots with digital camera moves added, not your run-of-the-mill efx shot (like erasing some piece of equipment in the frame, adding an animated effect like a laser blast, etc.)

 

In this case, putting the anamorphic lens on the Epic, there would be no advantage over using the Alexa recording to a Codex, other than the smaller size and that the raw recorder was built in. I think in this case it was more likely the reason was simply it was one more camera on their truck, why not throw it in?

True. But does the original Epic (not the Dragon) have high speed capabilities in ANA mode?

VFX means visual effects -- an effect added in post -- as opposed to what are called physical effects, mechanical effects, special effects -- things done on set. It's a nickname, not a standardized term; I sometimes use efx and vfx interchangeably.

No, I mean, what kind of VFX work would one use the Epic for?

Sure, they could use an Alexa M, which still gets cabled over to an Alexa body, and then to a data recorder for raw, but that's 2.88K raw, not 5K raw, if the efx people wanted more resolution... though now that you mention anamorphic lenses, they wouldn't be getting much more resolution compared to a 4x3 Alexa since the Epic has a 1.9 : 1 sensor -- cropped to 1.20 : 1 for 2X anamorphic photography, I think it's more like 3.2K raw.

 

Probably though for some efx shots, like wide shots, they might be carrying some spherical lenses in order to shoot 5K with some vertical room for repositioning. But for grabbing the Epic to use as a B-camera, they are just putting the same anamorphic lenses on as the Alexa.

 

Keep in mind that the Epic records raw data onboard, which an Alexa cannot do (until the XT version comes out with the built-in Codex recorders), so the Epic is more self-contained as a unit, which can be useful when running around.

 

Productions have tried to match HD footage from DSLR's and GoPros into a big movie shot in a better format, but usually in an action scene, those shots are very brief even if they don't match. But the Epic footage would be very close to the Alexa footage, I've seen tests where they've been matched fairly closely, hard to tell them apart. The Epic has maybe about 1.5-stops less headroom in the overexposed areas, but with careful exposure, that could be corrected for somewhat, and all you'd have to do if it were really critical was to add some contrast to the highlights of the Alexa footage. Action films are often color-timed on the snappy, contrasty side anyway.

 

"Oblivion" used Sony F65's mixed with Epics for steadicam shots and it all matched pretty well.

 

Even "Skyfall", which was shot on the Alexa, used Epics for some aerial work.

What do you mean by VFX work?

Yes, they may be carrying Epics for rigs that need to be smaller/lighter or when they want 5K RAW for efx work, and having those cameras on the package already, probably the director started just using them as one more camera to roll on an action scene, figuring he will make it all match in post later.

Couldn't they just use the Arri Alexa M instead of switching over to an entirely different camera system? Also, is it possible to match Alexa and Epic in post?

Some shots may need FX work later on and the higher resolution and ability to reframe may be quit beneficial.

That's just an off the cuff guess though.

How could they reframe if they're using anamorphic lenses? Or was that just you telling me another use of the Epic?

It was the b-roll:

 

Shane Black was the one really using it though. That's the 15-40 or the 28-76, I can't tell them apart.

Don't people usually use compact zooms to fill in for a number of primes? In which case the only Leica Summilux focal length that would be used is the 100mm. But I'm probably wrong.

But why would someone use two different camera systems other than for size and/or HFR?

If IMDB is to be believed, they're using Cooke S4s and Optimos on the Alexa Plus and Canon C500.

 

That is an E-Series 100mm in the second photo. Maybe they're trying to get different looks for different characters or locations, spherical in some parts, anamorphic in others. Or treating different cameras like different film stocks.

 

The upcoming RoboCop remake also shot on both Alexa and Epic.

iMDB is not to be believed because I wrote that. Don't ask me why.

Fong said a few months ago that his next film, like his last two, would be 35mm anamorphic. It would be interesting if this is what he was talking about.

I think that'll probably end up being the case.

While you can't see what lens they're using, this image clearly shows the cameraman holding an Arri Alexa Plus.

 

 

Wheras this image shows a camera with a Red Pro monitor which from my understanding, can only be used with the Red Epic. The lens is labeled "E100" making me think that it's a Panavision E-Series anamorphic prime, which Trent Opaloch used on Elysium with the Red Epic as well.

 

 

Now, Marvel seems to want to keep the workflow of their films streamlined by using the Codex Vault. And while the Codex Vault does accept footage from the Epic, Marvel Studios' senior vice-president of production Bruce Markoe stated that they bought both Codex Vaults and Recorders/Capture Drives (which makes no sense since they're bound to become obsolete in a few years when Codex comes out with something more advanced, oh...wait...they already did)

I remember seeing a video of John Toll using a viewfinder with what looked like one of the short Optimos on it.

Was it the B-Roll footage? I have to take a second look at that.

Anybody know what zooms, if any, they used on this? All I know is that they used the Leica Summilux primes for a lot of it.

Hard to tell, since there has been inflation and no one outside Panavision knows how much it cost to develop and manufacture both batches of lenses. I'd assume the G cost more because of higher correction etc. but they didn't have computers to assist on the C series.

Wow, I really need to start elaborating and stop being so vague. I was actually referring to the cost of renting them. Sorry.

Hi all,

 

I added Nicolas Winding Refn to the title of this post because he is mostly the reason why I decided to create this thread today, although it deals with a topic that's been on my mind for years and years.

 

In short, I'm really tired of this "story is everything" argument when dealing with any art, but cinema in particular since it is the art I am mostly interested in.

 

Let me be clear here, I don't think narrative cinema is a bad thing. Quite the opposite, I get far more involved into a film if it has a story to tell. I've never been a Stan Brakhage fan for instance, although I can appreciate what he did and still enjoy watching his shorts and documentaries from time to time.

 

So you won't hear me say that "cinema should get rid of the idea of story and be about style only".

 

However, I DO have a problem in the fact that story is the number one reason that brings people to the theater. I do have a problem with the fact that people judge the quality of a film based on the question "Did I like this story or not?" instead of "did I enjoy the cinematography/editing/music/sound/etc. or not?")

 

Am I the only one who gets the feeling that cinema has become a way for people who are too lazy to read books to passively watch a story unravel in front of their tired eyes?

 

Although to me story is certainly the backbone of a movie project, I think that once it's a completed film, it's become about so much more than story. I never judge a film based on the story it tells, but only based on how it tells it (cinematography, sound, editing, acting, directing, set design, etc etc). I don't think it's even fair to judge a movie based on its story, because the story was already there long before it became a movie. I mean how can people judge book adaptations based on their story, when they tell the exact same story that was already told in the book? Did you really enjoy the Lord of the Rings trilogy (if you even did, I know I have mixed feelings about it) because of the story itself, or because of how this story was put on the screen? Isn't what's really important HOW the story from the book was turned into a film?

 

I was watching a film yesterday that a dear friend of mine was involved in, and I absolutely loved the story. The film however, was one of the worst films I have watched in recent memory. Because the cinematography was amateurish, with camera moves and placements that were so obvious you could almost see the guy operating it even better than what he was pointing the camera at, because the highlights were so blown I considered putting sunglasses on... The sound was crap and was muffled as soon as the characters were talking inside a confined space such as a car. The editing was sloppy. And yet, the story, characters and acting were all great. Well, if story really was what mattered the most, then how come I hated this film only because of its technical, stylistic shortcomings?

 

If story really was what made a film good or not, then how come the best script around can be turned into a terrible movie?

 

I'm the greatest fan of David Lynch, a man who conceives his films not as stories, but as images and sounds that end up telling one. But even if you don't understand the story he's telling you, you can still enjoy the experience. The dream-like quality of his films. The filmmaker I'm most excited about nowadays in Nicolas Winding Refn, who revels in style and shoots feature films on 20-page long screenplays (Eraserhead also was a 21-page screenplay by the way). I can't wait to watch Only God Forgives tomorrow, even though it was trashed by critics left and right for being a film that emphasized style over story. That's exactly what I'm in this business for!

 

My favourite movies are all films I enjoy because of their style (Blade Runner for instance) rather than their primary story (I don't care at all about Deckard having to hunt down replicants and I am not involved in his story as a character). Would Blade Runner be as deep a film if it hadn't this predominant human-versus-machine theme? Certainly not! Was this theme derived from the primary story of the film? Certainly! But would the film, its story and themes, be as enjoyable without its killer cinematography and production design? No, it would not. Because those are the elements (amongst others, such as the OST) that made it a good film instead of just a good story.

 

Are you not tired of hearing that "the best cinematography is the one you don't notice"? To me, the best cinematography is the one that floors you by how obvious and magnificent it is.

 

How I would enjoy watching early films at the time they were released, and be awed by the novelty of the technique rather than by their story. Do you think the first movie audiences really enjoyed the fact that this train was entering the La Ciotat train station? Or were they just awed by the sight of this train photographs moving towards them? Did people really about seeing Méliés go to the moon? Or did they just enjoy watching a new form of magic tricks performed in front of them, and scratching their heads over the way they had been accomplished?

 

Cinema has always been about style to me. Style is what matters the most. Story is ultimately important, but secondary. How the story is told, that's what cinema is all about for me.

 

I would really love to read your personal thoughts on this, seeing as most people here are much more experienced than me and have probably pondered over these issues since before I was even born. Is story destroying cinema as an art by imposing those silly structures we hear everyone babbling about all the time ("page XX should have a major plot point happening")? Are movies really meant to be conceived through a screenplay first and images and sounds later? Was cinema always about story?

 

I want to end this very convoluted post by reaffirming that I love stories, and that I want to do this job because it allows me to tell stories. I am in no way saying that story is not important, I'm just saying that style is MORE important than story, and I'd really enjoy discussing this with you, whether you agree or not.

 

Nicolas

Absolutlely, although I believe that both can be done.

Doing some rough math, I get about a 1.2 crop factor with 2X anamorphic lenses on the Dragon sensor if you will using a 1.20 : 1 area, so basically if you like the view of a 50mm anamorphic on a 35mm camera, you'd use a 40mm anamorphic to get something similar in view.

Thanks for the info.

if you wanna good video assist, 1st you must have this, before you 35mm:

 

http://www.arri.com/pro_camera_accessories_legacy/electronic_accessories/hd_ivs.html

 

I read in another thread that both this and the PV HD video tap suffer from light loss, is this true?