elvworks

Hi Matt, No, I do not have my own editing equipment. I was thinking of hiring an editor for that part. And yes, please rain on my parade if it should be rained on. I would rather have it rained on here than out there in the field. There's wisdom in counsel. My thinking for all this is, competition is fierce in this business, you really have to put out something that will stand out and I wanted to know if this is a practical and effective move. All the best, Rick

Phil Rhodes, David Mullen, you guys are awesome. Thanks for answering my questions. I outlined my plans on another thread, if you have the time, I would most want to hear what you have to say. Here is the link: http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...showtopic=11855 Regards, :D Rick

First of all, I gotta say, this forum rocks!!! I want to make a trailer in hopes of securing funding to make the feature and I would most welcome your generous insight (as I always do). (Note: I am totally aware that securing funds with use of a trailer is rare, but possible) From a Director?s standpoint (although I also have the heart of a cinematographer), I?m under the belief of focusing and immersing yourself on one really good project as opposed to five projects that people will never hear about. Okay, here we go, I want to make a two minute trailer on Super 35 film as it will not need to be projected, but shown to producers (via video/DVD) of the style and quality of how the movie will look. As far as costs are concerned for making a Super 35mm trailer, I estimated the costs anywhere from 2,500.00 to 4,000.00 for the cost of film, processing, hiring a dp, sound, camera rental. Maybe for one long weekend, two tops. Is this right? (Note: This does not include the costs of the sets and food etc.) Pluses: 1. I won?t need anamorphic lenses as this will not need to be projected, but just stay on ?video,? and it could be cropped to 2.35. (The actual feature will have to be anamorphic) 2. I?ll be able to give investors a really good taste of the movie and perhaps wow them. 3. They can see that I?m capable of giving them a great movie with a great story, or at least convince them more. 4. It won't be video (SD/HD) looking. I originally thought of making this movie on HD for costs sake, but it?s intended release is theatrical (not video). So then that?s when I started to see this movie needs to be done on film as well as have the look and texture of film. I think this way it will be much easier to get theatre distribution as opposed to an HD/SD conversion to film (which is rare). I have also thought of making a digital trailer as well, and hope that they (investors) will see through the video to the incredible story but if your springing for all the video equipment already, why not spend that money, add a little more and put it on film. I think if the seed is better, the harvest will yield much greater. You?re thoughts to my dilemma is sincerly appreciated, as I will read every word of your post. All the best, :D Rick

(thanks for your time, input and insight) Question 1. From what I understand, you can shoot anamophoric 35mm or super 35, but is anamorphic lenses ever used with Super 35, and if yes, why? Question 2. If you shoot anything else besides 35mm, you will have to transfer to a 35mm print. But what happens when you shoot in 35mm and copy it to tape for offline editing. Don't you still have to make a print to 35mm anyway once you're done editing, hence incurring the cost of a 35mm print? Thanks for filling in the missing pieces of the puzzle for me. All the best, :D Rick

Film Quality from DV Yes, after reading this long thread, I must post. I hate to say it but I feel digital will catch up, if not surpass film, in our generation. Just look at the technology of still cameras. Film has been around a long time. Digital is now only maturing, but given electronics and how fast it moves, it's just a matter of time. Slowly the general public will get used to digital images and maybe in the future, if they see a movie shot with film, they may not even like it. Maybe it will look to old to them, who knows what their reasons will be. I like Michael Mann's approach to Collateral. He wanted to show LA at night, and so, video/HD had a purpose there. Film couldn't do that. So you really have to ask yourself, "What are the advantages of video (at whatever level you will shoot, mini DV - HD) and capitalize on those advantages. Let's say things were the other way around for a moment. How about if digital shooting was around for a hundred years and economic film shooting was now only maturing. Would people be like, "Wait, I must get my film to look more....argh...like real time, I don't know, like video I guess, it looks to dreamlike, I want it more NOW looking." Sometimes I wonder if people even appreciate this gift we have available to us called movie making. Maybe some people will always be complainers. I don't know, sorry, that was personal. Picture this, picture yourself on the street corner and three different people come up to you right after each other and tell you the same exact story of something that happened the day before on that corner, let's say it lasts one minute. Picture the first guy, a punk teenager who's slang leaves much to be desired. Then picture a middle aged refined man that speaks eloquently, then picture a sweet little girl. Now they're all telling you the same story, and let's say the story was boring. Now picture a smelly street person come up to you and tell you a different story, one that is comical, appealing and quite enjoyable. So it's not so much the carrier per say, but the story they bring mostly and how it's told. So make sure your story is tight. Make sure it has all the elements. Run it by people who are storytellers, not people who don't know story construction. Is it a story you can get lost in? If you can't get lost in it, how would you expect the viewer. I really believe if you put in the time into your story, your vision will transcend whatever medium you use, dv, 35mm, the written word, animation, whatever. Think about it, would you rather read a story from Ordinary Joe typed on a 10,000 dollar computer system and printed on the best paper, or would you rather read a story from J.R.R. Tolkien written in pencil in a little pad while he was writing in a fox hole when he was in the army. It's not the camera, it's you. Then hopefully, once people see your passion, maybe your next shoot will be film, or on a viper, or whatever you want to do. I would like to leave you with one quote from Richard Mullen who said, "You basically shoot with the best stuff you can practically afford and then do your best." All the best, :rolleyes: Rick p.s. - There is alot of great insight in this thread and I learned alot. Thank you!

Aye, aye, Captain, this is an interesting thread. I can appreciate what you're trying to do. I really like the concept you're trying to acheive, but I believe switching between 16:9 and 4:3 formats may not be the best way to achieve that. (although anything is possible these days, but as far as looking smooth, that would be tough) I would suggest shooting the whole thing in 16:9 for the main reason of it looking newer, especially for a sci-fi film. Now as far as your contrast in space vs. tight space. I think you could best accomplish your tight space feel with your composition of the shots. Because if you think about it, you can shoot space in 16:9 and it still may not have the depth you want. It has to be the composition/layout. In the ship, you can make your sets very tight. Make the actors have to crouch if necessary. Nothing in the way of leg room, smaller chairs, etc. You may also want to have 4:3 monitors on the ship where the actors will speak back and forth and that could be your 4:3 tight space feel also. Then with your space shots, to show that expanse, you will need some frame of references to show the breadth of it. Maybe a meteor going by that is huge at first and disappears slowly to a spec, or the same in reverse. Showing the ship next to a planet is also good to show how small they are, even compared to a planet. 16:9 looks cooler, newer, and ready for 16:9 televisions. Hope this helps, :D Rick

I like the look of Battlestar Gallactica, I just don't like the bouncy camera. Hey, but that's just me. Rick

Hi Richard, To be honest, I will have to rent Collateral, I only saw a few scenes in passing. I appreciate your suggestion. Rick

I am so looking forward to Superman Returns. I've been looking forward to a Superman motion picture for a while now, like alot of others I presume. It's hard to tell from the previews exactly how it will look but I hope this will be the first digital that will actually look good and will work with the story. If it looks as bad as Attack of the Clones and/or Return of the Sith, I might just start crying. :( But I am hopeful: :D Rick

Did you ever Return of the Magnificent Seven? I actually saw it last night, I didn't even know we had it in our library. Then when I started to watch it, it was exactly what we were talking about. It had a great amount of scope and it really was visually appealing, especially for such an old movie. The lenses choice, their composition, I loved it. (Unlike alot of today's movies where it's filled with alot of close shots and you really don't see anything else but the actors. I think their needs to be balance in telling the story.) Thanks, Rick

Uhm, thanks for the tip buddy, but no thanks. Any other 1.85 movies you would like to suggest? Rick

Hi Jonathon Benny, You very effectively answerd my main anamorphic question(s). Thank you! I was under the impression that shooting anamorphic could give you a field of view that wasn't available with spherical. Now I know better. I agree with you that it is through composition, camera angles and the right uses of lenses where you achieve a true sense of scope. Thanks, Rick

I really appreciate everyone's replies, I always learn so much. Prior in this thread, we were talking about the composition being a major factor in a movie having a true sense of scope, and really passing that onto the audience. So that's why I brought up the lenses having a part to play as well. Because if you do compose your shots with a wider field of view available (using anamorphic), I imagine you would have more scope? I really do appreciate this forum where I can have questions answerd, and from different viewponts. All the best, Rick

Thank you both for your input, it was very insightful. I've been going through all my dvd's and checking the IMDB site to see which were shot in spherical and/or anamorphic and try to see if I see a consistant difference between either. I also know there are a whole mess of other factors that adds up to the end product as well. A tend to lean to what audiris said where super 35 can look flat at times and anamorphic gives you more of a three dimensional feel. I guess it comes down to not so much as what you're using, but how you're using it.

Thank you, but I don't think you answered my question. My question is short is, do you get a wider scope picture with 2.35 anamorphic or 2.35 Spherical? And which lenses are sharper? Thank you, :rolleyes: Rick

Is using anamorphic lenses another reason for having that scope feel. From my understanding, if you shoot the same shot with a spherical and with an anamorphic, (considering they have the same composition, ofcourse adjust the lighting and all that) the anamorphic picture should have more or feel more scope? Is this right pros? Is that why some scope movies don't seem scope (on top of the lack of composition of the shot)? I know the lenses have a big part to play. I'm interested to hear from anyone who has worked with both and can explain the difference. All the best, Rick

I feel your pain :D You the victim man! That's why I'm so thankful that the correct aspect ratios are on the DVD's, usually anyway. Actually, now a days, it's sometimes tough to find a theatre where you are really satisfied anyway. I usually go in knowing this, and if it turns out great, then great, otherwise I almost expect something to not be up to par. Not that I'm a pessimist, but I do go to the theatre quite a bit. It goes further than what's on the screen, it could be the person behind you kicking the seat, or some one talking on their cellphone, or the popcorn tastes stale, the floor sticky, the seats don't recline or whatever. Usually it's always something, (and I'm an optimist) My way of combating this is to go on a weekday, and watch a matinee while most everyone is at work and before it gets messy. I could sit wherever i want and it's almost like my living room. No one bugs me. Personally, I think theatres will have to come up with something new because if this continues, people may just wait to watch stuff at home, even the bigger movies. It just might not be worth it to go to the movies, not mention all you pay for food for a family. Drive Ins where phased out, theatres can be too, especially with soaring ticket prices. It may just be a matter of time before every house is equipped with a widescreen tv, an ample sound system and a microwave oven for popcorn. So I think the movie going experience has to be reinvented to last or it may be a real tough business to stay in, even tougher than it is now. Nothing can ever take the place of a projected picture on a big screen, but I think a good portion of people may not care about that and just watch their movie at home. Rick

No disrespect Landon, but if you simply went to better theatres as David mentioned... (which I will quote below: ...you might be a happier camper. I think it's close to insanity to gripe over a theatre's screen size if the theatre is antiquated. If you went to a new cineplex, you probably won't have a problem with either 1.85 or 2.39, because even a 1.85 gives you a good amount of screen size. If there is nothing around you, then you always have the choice of moving, or you could always buy the theatre by you and replace the screens. :D All the best, Rick p.s. - thanks for the diagrams

Does anyone know what happened to the photography.com website? It was a cool website where you could post your pictures and people could critique them. Hopefully they only moved and didn't close down, my pics were on there. If anyone knows, please let me know, thanks!!! Rick

Does anyone know why Michael Bay shot Bad Boys (I) in the 1.85 aspect ratio? It's just rare for a movie like that, maybe he had his reasons. I have the DVD and looks good and all, but just curious if anyone knew what the reasons were? Rick :)

Well, I agree with what is the best ratio to tell the story. I like what Oliver Stapleton said in this article on which aspect ratio to use. http://www.imdb.com/Indie/Ask/20010504.html Okay, now this part about supposing in advance........if the whole movie is about someone being confined, and 2.39 is needed to tell the story, then hey, whatever. If it's just one or two scenes, I'm sure they can change the composition of their shots to show confinement in a 1.85 ratio. I mean, what is the whole movie about? Where you referring to a certain movie? I understand people use the widescreen 2.39 ratio for other uses than scope. But I find it rarely looks good. That's just me. Look at TV commercials filmed in 2.35, most look stupid. I can say, I saw one that was actually done "right." Some medicine commerical about a guy getting on a bus or something. Just for the record, I'm not a hater of 1.85. Actually, I really like seeing that aspect ratio in certain regards. Also, that ratio looks great when watching TV. Like comedy movies or certain tv shows. But you can tell 2.39 is done right, when you can watch it on a little portable DVD player and you feel it, that certain something, the magic, it's SCOPE! All the best, Rick

That's right! I care about scope too, to add scope! And it takes more than just filming in 2.39 to have scope, breadth and depth. It's an art. :D Rick

Hi John, Thank you for your article, very imformative. You're right, alot of theatres don't project an accurate 1.85 image. It actually looks very thin at times. What I've noticed is the new theatres have their stuff pretty accurate, for the most part anyway. Their 1.85 movies look watchable and you don't feel like you're watching a big tv set. But the older theatres, that don't bring their screen to the walls so they have a very narrow 1.85. Normally, 1.85 movies, I would wait to see on tv, because screen size was so small. But maybe, just possibly, if theatres invest in the largest screens they can fit, maybe this whole masking thing wouldn't even be a big deal. The 1.85 would be wide and the 2.39 would be wide as heck. It would be great. And you won't feel jipped if you're watching a 1.85 movie. Just for the record, I prefer the masking on the side, but like I said, it would be cool to see a huge 1.85 movie if it looked right. Where I used to work at Loews Theatres in N.J., they used to show their trailers in 1.85, then when the feature was about to start, the projector would read a sensor on the film and automatically dim the lights, switch the lenses and open the masking for a 2.39 movie. It was pretty cool, you felt like you were in for a real movie. It also used to have an eight screen set up, but they took a big room upstairs and cut it up to make three little theatres out of it. But in the center, they kept the same screen and it looked great because it completely reached all your periphial vision plus it was slightly concave, and when they showed a 1.85 movie and the masking was cropping the picture, it wasn't a big deal. So I say, get the biggest screens you can fit in the room, break the walls down if you have to, and leave the masking on the side as opposed to the top and/or bottom. :D SCOPE RULES!!!! Rick

Mr. Parks, Let me see if I'm understanding you right. You're saying, instead of cutting off the sides of the screen to accommodate the 1.85 movies, especially in theatres that bring their screen to the walls, they should be at the wall already with the 1.85 aspect ratio and drop the masking down for 2.39 movies? So in essence, 1.85 will be the big screen, even at big houses, and 2.39 will be the thinner screen. But since the screen is already going to the walls, what are you really losing. Good point and valid. And I do admit, it would be nice to see 1.85 movies larger in movie houses. Actually, that's a really good idea. If I had a theatre, I would definitely consider setting it up that way. It's not like your losing anything with 2.39, you just add some screen at the top to house the 1.85 movies using all the real estate. The 2.39 aspect ratio still rules though, but I could see your point. Actually, maybe there should be three settings. 1.85 to the walls, 2.39 with the masking that comes down, then "Cheap 1.85" with the masking that comes down and the masking that cuts off the left and right for all those 1.85 crappy movies. haha Cause if you show a substandard 1.85 on that big screen, it may not be a pretty picture. This is what it comes down to. I have seen scope movies that are crap and flat movies that are crap. So really, as long as the movie is good, that's all that matters. As far as aspect ratio, I prefer 2.39, but seriously, I would like to see the movie, whatever it is, shown in its intended aspect ratio. All the best, :D Rick

One more thing on original ideas if I could... Movie making is a collaboration, whether it's 2 or 200 people. So some people may do things that they might have seen on other films, knowingly or unknowingly, whatever part of the film it may be. Or they just may come up with the same ideas. For example, over the weekend, I saw Legend of Zorro at the $2.00 theatre, why not, right? Anyway, in one scene there was an explosion, and they had all these little fires everywhere, and you can clearly see the fires are those duraflame logs you put in your chimney.......and in watching the production diaries of Superman Returns, it's the same thing. When Sup's spaceship lands, they have a bunch of those little logs all over the place. So the physical effects people in both movies, whether they are the same people or not, did the same thing, hence, not an original idea, or not one to us. Many times in history, two groups of people thought of a similar idea at the same time. (Although I'm sure this duraflame log idea probably has been around for a long time) I do have to say, the stunt work in Legend of Zorro was pretty fun to watch, and well choregraphed and shot. So as far as original ideas, maybe they might be found in books, because to find a complete original idea on screen with so many people's hands in it will be completely rare. Rick