Jump to content

Leon Liang

Basic Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    90

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Student
  • Location
    Sydney
  1. Leon Liang
    Plus, Gangs of New York was also a "passion project" and that turned out pretty well in my opinion.
  2. Leon Liang
    That trailer was amazing, I've already watched it 3 times on end and counting. Do we know anything yet about the choice to use anamorphic?
  3. Leon Liang
    Correction: Deakins sometimes shoots with an 85 and sometimes shoots without. I found this in his forum: "I do sometimes shoot without correction and sometimes with. I have found that there is a difference between shooting a tungsten balanced stock and correcting in the lab as opposed to correcting with a filter. When correcting with a filter the shadows are warmer than if you shoot without a filter. For a film like 'True Grit' I wanted warm shadows but for 'Shawshank' I wanted colder shadows and hence the choice to be made." http://www.deakinsonline.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=2871&p=15535&hilit=85+filter+shawshank#p15535 And here's the AC article for "Tree of Life": https://www.theasc.com/ac_magazine/August2011/TheTreeofLife/page1.php
  4. Leon Liang
    Actually, when he uses film, Roger Deakins says on his forum that he almost always uses an 85 filter when he shoots film. An exception would be with "The Shawshank Redemption", for which he corrected in post because it apparently rendered cooler shadows. I know that Emmanuel Lubezki corrected in post on "The Tree of Life", according to the American Cinematographer article: "He did not use an 85 filter because it “homogenizes” the complex color. Instead, he prefers to color balance in the timing."
  5. Leon Liang
    I'm confused about how Sasaki explains the difference in magnification and perspective between anamorphic and super 35. Here's the video: How is it that a 35mm anamorphic would be more 'compressed' than 17.5mm super 35, if both have pretty much the same angle of view? Would a 50mm in 65mm therefore be more compressed than a 25mm in super 35, while maintaining the same angle of view? Thanks, Leon
  6. Leon Liang
    Well the curtains still exist in most major Australian cineplexes, and it's a really good feeling when you watch them slowly draw out to the side to show a 2.35 movie.....unless the movie is actually 1.85 and cropped to 2.35 for absolutely no f*cking reason, like "Spotlight" or "Boyhood". But in London I saw "2001" on an 1.85 screen with letterboxes for 2.2:1, which did feel rather odd.
  7. Leon Liang
    Hi everyone, I recently watched Spotlight in a cinema in Sydney and it had been cropped to 2.35:1 from its original 1.85:1. The same thing happened when I watched Boyhood in 2014. I emailed the cinema chain regarding this and they replied: "All films are sent to us directly from the distributor and in the format and viewing that they intend the film to be shown. Unfortunately, this is something that we do not have control over." Is there any reason why 1.85:1 films might have been distributed in 2.35:1? Leon Liang
  8. Leon Liang
    And you want to know this because...?
  9. Leon Liang
    Don't forget about "House of Cards" in 2:1. Though I guess on Netflix there is more freedom of aspect ratios since you don't have to care about projection etc. (Wasn't "Tomorrowland" 2.2:1?)
  10. Leon Liang
    Who knows, maybe television DPs will start shooting 1.3x anamorphic on 4-perf Super 35 or 4:3 mode on the Alexa. I think that's what Linus Sandgren did on Gus Van Sant's Promised Land.
  11. Leon Liang
    Why is the author calling anamorphic lenses 'vintage'? Plus, Downton Abbey and Alien (not sure about Polark) are shot with spherical lenses. In other words, I have a feeling she doesn't know what she's talking about.
  12. Leon Liang
    Thanks, that certainly clears things up.
  13. Leon Liang
    I understand that using a wide lens close to the subject will give a different perspective from a long lens far from the subject, and that was my original understanding of perspective. Right now I'm just confused about how using a larger format would affect the perspective; as in, if you shot a scene with a 40mm lens on Super 35mm, then shot the same scene with everything (hypothetically) the same, except now using a 60mm lens on full-frame 35mm, would the perspective change at all? Because the PDF seems to be saying that it does affect the perspective and I'm inclined to think it doesn't.
  14. Leon Liang
    But then what do they mean by: My interpretation is that they're saying you will change the perspective if you use a sensor or film frame of a different size but using a lens with the same field of view. That what my initial perception of "perspective" was, but now...not so sure.
  15. Leon Liang
    Hi everyone, I came across this short PDF from Panavision (http://www.panavision.com/sites/default/files/docs/documentLibrary/3%20Sensor%20size%20Perspective%20%283%29.pdf) that explains how focal lengths work, and I found this on page 8... ...which made me very confused. What is the difference between field of view and perspective? If you were film a person's face with a 50mm lens on Super 35mm, would you get the same field of view but a "flatter" face if you filmed the face from the exact same angle and distance with a 75mm lens on Vistavision? Thanks, Leon Liang P.S. Or maybe Panavision is putting a bit of false advertising in there to make filmmakers who don't fully understand how focal lengths work buy Primo 70 lenses. You never know.
×
×
  • Create New...