Jon Kukla

Just to answer the original question somewhat, as far as using Super 35 for a 1.85 image (aka "Super 1.85"), I know that it was done infrequently in the early 90's by people like Daviau, and Emmanuel Lubezki has used it at least a few times in this decade. I have no idea if Lubezki's were DI, though. Certainly conceivable either way. As mentioned below, 3-perf vs. 4-perf would not make a difference image-wise, although it does impact production issues like shooting time per roll, impinging hairs, and some editorial and neg-cutting things down the road (mainly just logging standards). The great thing about 3-perf and Super 35 is that if you know you're going to be doing a DI for sure, then there's very little reason not to use both of them if possible.

Storaro talks more about it...

The most important thing to me amongst all of this is getting the proper artistic intention down. I'm more willing to pay for a 1.2K projection at the proper aspect ratio than a 6K projection that directly contradicts the intended ratio. Speaking of which, I had my own bad run-in with improper aspect ratios today, when I borrowed a DVD of Ocean's Eleven (the remake). Turns out it was a 1.33 pan and scan extraction from the 2.39 image (not the full frame), using common top frameline. What makes this truly unforgivable, though, is that the disc was part of the "Limited Collector's Edition" from the "Classics Collection". I can understand one-off 4:3 releases, but to allow them to be part of deluxe boxsets is just a hair short of capital crime.

Why don't we just talk about the movie and bring up relevant stills as needed to illustrate detailed points?

Wow, that was very enjoyable. I saw the Director's Cut DVD, which apparently cut 20 minutes and added 30 minutes of different material, so I have no reference for the theatrical cut, but it seemed pretty decent to me. Only major complaint I have is the whole CIA and Sese Seko angle - it just led NOWHERE! While it was interesting to get a COINTELPRO reference, I felt that the "cameos" of MLK and other notable people/events were better handled as important points tangential to the plot but essential to the context. The CIA stuff actually seemed to imply that it was going to payoff, but...oh well, maybe it was clearer in the original release. It certainly isn't here and maybe would've been better pared down further. But as for the cinematography: bang on! Gets a good period feel without using cliche tricks. And it was actually refreshing to see scenes bathed in less beautiful shades of fluorescent green. I'm still somewhat skeptical about the HD work - while it definitely was able to capture images in otherwise impossible situations (an important precursor to Collateral), it felt jarring, particularly for odd scene choices like the lovemaking. Although the minicams that were used for the fight POVs were a great way to freshen up the conventions of fight sequences. I was able to read the ICG article online, but I haven't managed to wrangle a copy of the AC article and wanted to know what exactly the development and printing workflow was? It seems pretty obvious to me that this had some silver retention at the neg, print, or both, but it would be nice to know what exactly was done. And I couldn't believe that it wasn't anamorphic, since I could've sworn that I saw horizontal flaring, classic anamorphic DoF, and so on. The ICG article also mentioned the cockpit scene being done in a real flying plane, which was another surprise. Anyway, anyone else have anything to share?

Which BL model is it? Only the BL1 can do 100 fps, if you're looking to go that fast.

No idea about the L. Square Odeon, but I'll ask. It wouldn't surprise me at all, though. But I also am 100% sure that they will always have a film backup being run simultaneously without the douser open in case of digital failure. The guy who runs the booth (forget his name) has backups upon backups for just about every scenario imaginable. They also have technicians in who regularly service the equipment on ridiculously small intervals (like every week or two, IIRC). Definitely the best screen in the UK.

The Odeon Covent Garden uses a 2K Christie. It's a pretty decent projector, but I find that the quality has more to do with the way that the D-Cinema file is mastered - some films look great while others clearly had less effort put into them. One even had some major aliasing problems.

http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=111

I rated it at 250 or 320, depending on the situation. Basically the pull takes a stop and the bypass gives you back a stop. But...your rating will be very dependent on the look you're going for and the particulars of the shot. How much you want the highlights to go over and how much you want to see into the shadows needs to be taken into account. Since I wanted to keep my contrast fairly constant over a wide range of shooting conditions (broad daylight to night exteriors), I also used a Varicon in conjunction, mainly just for the night exteriors, to keep the shadows from totally being lost. I didn't want to overexpose the film or not pull it because I wanted to keep the contrast managable. Were my concept for the film different, I might have been more open to those options. I can't stress enough, though, that you have to test for both the stock and the lab. Oh, and try to test in the conditions you're likely to be in, whether that's day ext, night ext, high-key or low-key, etc... And of course putting the tests through your intended workflow would be ideal. But all that said, be bold! What's the point of paying extra to do this, otherwise? :)

Here's a great excerpt from David Watkin's autobiography which mentions 3-strip: One of my first jobs, as a third camera assistant, was to be my only experience of the original three-strip Technicolor. This was a process as interesting as it was cumbersome, involving three separate rolls of film passing through the camera together. Personally I have found threesomes to be unsatisfactory affairs - one member, in my limited experience, tending to get left rather out of things. However the photographic variety seemed to manage well enough; two of the emulsions being run face to face in what may be described as missionary fashion, and the right at right angles through a prism. Here analogy breaks down. Each strip of film was sensitised to a different colour and the three resulting black and white records were then used to make prints in exactly the same way as is used to reproduce coloured illustrations in books. There is a gentle irony attached to all this because a print could be made today of a three-strip picture in the 1930s which would be as pristine as the original, whereas one taken from the more modern process dating from the mid-fifties, where the dyes are incorporated in the emulsion, would be faded and dull. It is often the case that people who initiate a thing care enough about it to get it right, and it is those who come along afterwards and "improve" (which usually means making it more convenient for somebody, often an accountant) who manage to get it wrong. Place a page from a Gutenberg Bible beside one from any 19th century book and the browned and crumbling relic will not be the one made in 1455. To return to my part in the proceedings, this consisted solely in filling forms, one oblong folio for each shot, detailing the colour of everything in sight from the sky and the grass to the leading actor's face after lunch. Three-strip afforded an uncanny degree of colour control and my job is supposed to have originated because of a picture shot on location in southern Ireland, where the letter and phone boxes are painted green. After a titanic struggle the exhausted laboratory sent back the first batch of rushes with them red as ever, only to get a rough bollocking by way of thanks. Technicolor three-strip was developed and patented by a scientist, unable to spell correctly and of a retiring disposition who, perhaps due to an attraction of opposites, had married a strong-minded wife with a liking for brash colours. The name of this Pre-Raphaelite lady was Natalie Kalmus and it appears on every three-strip picture as colour consultant, consultant in this context being a euphemism for dictator. It might be interesting to print a few of these movies with a somewhat calmer palette but it probably would not suit them. Martin Hart at the Widescreen Museum webpage is somewhat more curt: If you think Charles and Diana had problems.... No piece written about Natalie Kalmus has ever been found that didn't include the word "bitch". The Curator sees no need for name calling, especially when others have done it so eloquently.

Fujifilm UK have had loads of 400' samples of Vivid since April. I would think by now they should be ramping up supplies. Especially since Dick Pope has been shooting the latest Mike Leigh film with this stock. I know that there has been some difficulty getting 16mm batches in yet, but 35mm should be fine. So call London.

It's a real shame. I was discussing this with some projectionist friends of mine the other week, and the consensus (in London at least) was that it would actually not be too difficult to reintroduce 70mm, at least in the booth. Many of the slightly older model projectors (which are still running beautifully) can be converted to 70mm in less than 5 minutes. Would also be vastly cheaper than a digital booth conversion.

Garish is a strong word. You have to remember that they were dealing with single-digit ASAs.

One is an anamorphic 2.40 ratio - 1.2 ratio with 2x squeeze, while the Super 35 is a spherical 2.40 and thus appears the same as the final image. Remember that Super 35 is only an origination format - it will be converted in post-production to an anamorphic print.

The lens batch issue has nothing to do with digital - it has to do with lens dies. Even if you buy three DVcams at once, there is no guarantee that the cameras will be sequential in camera serial number, much less lens serial number. The only way you could properly do this is with close coordination with the lens manufacturer (and presumably camera manufacturer as well). I'm not try to discourage you or say that it won't make for acceptable results, but you might want to give Clairmont Camera a call to ask about the "Crazy Horse" rig and how much time and effort it took to pull it off properly. And that's with just two cameras.

When you are dealing with theatrical film projection, the ultimate masking will always occur in the projector. Projection booths need to have different individual prime lenses for each format, in order for the image throw height to be consistent. Each of these lenses also needs an aperture mask, which mattes out the perforations and soundtrack from impinging on the projected image. This is why standard projection apertures are always slightly smaller than camera apertures. Another important point to note is that aperture masks are almost always customized with a metal file to compensate for the characteristics of the booth/screen combination, such as slight image bleed or keystone effect. And then there is the concept of racking, where - especially with non-anamorphic prints - the projectionist can accidentally show too much of the top or bottom of the image, thus re-framing it. This is why booms, stands, and wires are often protected for the entire frame, even when the ground glass is much more restrictive. (It also allows for the dreaded open-matte "full screen".) As a partial check against these variations, some DPs have been known to insert a hard matte inside the gate in order to somewhat reduce the likelihood of gross misframing. The most common practice I've heard of is to use a 1.66 matte, since it still allows for reframing in post if necessary. Hope this hasn't muddled it up further. But the short answer is that unless the print is anamorphic, then the chances are pretty good that most or all of the Academy frame has image information, even though much of it may be intended to be cropped in-projector (soft matte). Most cameras tend to shoot full silent gate regardless of format (unless the hard matte is used).

I believe it's something like 9" to the foot. Don't know which way, unfortunately, but that should be easy to find out online on in the ASC manual. I've had the privilege to watch one of the top guys in the UK pull focus wirelessly from above the water, and apparently he pulls focus by monitor, based on the size of the object in the frame.

If you want more contrast, I'd look into the slightly older stocks (Vision 1 and Super-F) for that quality.

I don't get why these are so popular. For a recce, I vaguely understand...but wouldn't it just be easier to bring a nicer digital camera with a decent zoom? As for shooting, asking for a pentafinder should not be a make or break request. (IMHO.)

Your main problem here is that there is no such thing as a "standard" workflow - every film will have a customized one tailored to their needs and budget. However, there are some general steps which can be discussed. I'll break this down into "old school" 100% film-based and "new school" mostly-digital-based. Old school: Negative is shot and developed > film dailies are struck for viewing and to create a workprint for editing; often a backup negative is also generated > editing cuts the workprint and requests reprints as need be > picture is "locked" > opticals are created > negative is assembled by a highly-skilled negative cutter using keykode logs > answer prints are struck for color timing > approved answer print settings are used to generate interpositive copies (IP)s > soundtrack is "married" to the print > IPs used to create internegatives (IN)s > INs used to create release prints. Usually the IP will also be used to create b/w separation masters, which are stable archival color separations that store each color channel on an individual roll of b/w film, because the b/w process is much more stable for preservation than current ECN/ECP color film technology. New school: Negative is shot and developed > dailies are generated digitally through telecine, output to one or several formats (DigiBeta, BetaSP, DVCAM, miniDV, DVD, etc), and include burnt-in timecode and keykode > editing "cuts" the film on a computer program using one of these formats as an "offline" source > the picture is "locked"> an edit decision list (EDL) is generated from the keykode and footage used in the digital cut > the EDL is used to indicate which frames should be given a higher-quality (2K or higher) scan for DI > (VFX, if needed, use parts of this scan for their rendering) > all sources (scanned negative, VFX, titles, digital footage) are assembled into the final picture > the locked picture files are color graded on a computer system > the digital grade is used as a master digital source for the digital cinema files and the consumer copies > if going for a release print, a slightly modified grade is created for a film-out; this grade's master file will be "printed" out either directly as a release print or as an IP, which then undergoes the same path as above. Most films are some combination of the two or may iterate sections within this several times. The vast majority now use digital editing, while anything not going out to the theater (music videos, TV drama, commercials, etc) will never return to the film realm after telecine and/or scan. Some films also make unusual usage of post-processes to create particular looks, such as "Traffic", but this has never been common and is even less so as digital grading capabilities have increased. That's a very rough guide and, as I usually spend far less time involved with post, may have some errors... Hopefully you understand the gist, though?

I've done BB + pull myself on a recent short - we were using Fuji Super-F 250T (8552). I like the effect because it does keep a fair amount of the characteristic bypass look while also minimizing grain and further desaturating the image. However, it is also something that you need to TEST, TEST, TEST, particularly with regards to exposure, filters, and even just the lab. We went with Technicolor UK and I found that when doing side-by-side comparisons between the footage that was just bypassed and the footage that was bypassed+pulled 1 stop, the bypass+pull footage looked a little bit warmer. I have no idea if that was the stock or the lab, but it was valuable to discover that.

Another factor to consider is the film speed. No matter how you store the film, atmospheric gamma rays will penetrate the can (and fridge or freezer) over time, gradually increasing granularity and base fog. The more sensitive the film stock, the faster this decay will occur. If you're storing 50D, you're probably fine for even a couple years if kept optimally, but if we're talking 500T, I would try to find an opportunity to pull it out as soon as you can. Mind you, I've shot 250T film which was kept under rather poor conditions (hot projection booth with no AC) and for a long time (no idea exactly, but probably at least 4 years or more) and gotten interesting results, but on the other hand, we used this film for a dream sequence and we able to get away with it. It looked a bit...stale is the best way to describe it. Also, a little extra overexposure goes a long way when working with older film. Testing is also HIGHLY recommended. If you have several rolls, test them ALL, since some may have responded differently.

That's not quite a fair comparison - film neg is BH perfs on acetate stock, while prints are KS perfs (bigger) on estar (stronger).

I just shot my Vivid tests this past week. Hopefully will be able to watch footage early next week (too busy shooting for now). Have some other news about the stock, though. Turns out that Dick Pope is using it for a sizeable chunk of the latest Mike Leigh film, which has just started production. So keep an eye out for that.