Jump to content

Indiana Jones 4: Panavision anamorphic, Super 35, or HD?


Saul Pincus

Recommended Posts

It makes sense since Academy is 1.37 and Anamorphic 1.20 with a 2X optical squeeze.

 

Of course, most cameras shooting anamorphic don't use an anamorphic gate, just projectors showing anamorphic. Most expose Full Aperture but have the lens centered for Academy/1.85/Anamorphic (Sound) and your groundglass shows you the anamorphic projection area. So your gate would be "A" but your framelines would be "D".

 

I'm not clear on what you mean by an anamorphic gate here? Are you saying that many cameras expose a S35 area (I mean the whole negative area by that) and then the side is cropped off for the soundtrack, while the operator sees the anamorphic area only through the viewfinder without the extra bit where the soundtrack would be?

 

As opposed to an anamorphic gate that protects the soundtrack area?

 

love

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I talked to someone working on the movie who said that they were shooting 35mm anamorphic, Panavision C and E-Series, and did not plan on doing a D.I. except for the digital efx that had to be transferred to film, otherwise a traditional film post.

 

Theres a part of me that can imagine them saying "yeah lets be really retro and shoot it old style anamorphic so it is in keeping with the other pictures!" ;)

 

However they see it themselves however, I think it is the right descision. They should maintain something of a look across the films, although I assume they are not using lenses from the time! ;)

 

I'm wondering if a big budget film like this could mix shooting anamorphic and S35 if they so wanted to?

Would it cut together badly?

 

love

 

Freya

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Well, a digital efx shot could shoot elements on spherical-lensed cameras, like in Super-35 or VistaVision, since it would be composited and recorded out to film in the anamorphic format that the main unit was shooting. If you are doing a D.I., it would be easier to mix 35mm formats.

 

Actually, C and E-series Panavision anamorphics do date back to the original films.

 

I did hear that Kaminski was using his usual diffusion filters, which the original series of films did not really do (except for a few scenes shot with Dior nets, particularly in "The Last Crusade"). But I also heard that they were lighting to deeper stops like Slocombe used to do, shooting on average around a T/8.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it a shame that Douglas Slocombe isn't shooting. I remember reading that Speilberg only wanted to make the fourth Indy movie for old times' sake, so I imagine everything's being kept as original as possible. Therer won't be any CGI, that I know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It's not digital, all film cameras."

 

Ahhh Spielberg greatest of them all, and selector of film, in the face of so many digital options.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it a shame that Douglas Slocombe isn't shooting. I remember reading that Speilberg only wanted to make the fourth Indy movie for old times' sake, so I imagine everything's being kept as original as possible. Therer won't be any CGI, that I know.

 

Doug Slocombe unfortunately lost his eyesight a few years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Thought I'd bump up this thread now that the teaser trailer's live.

 

Sweet anamorphic photography and classic Spielberg compositions and cutting. There have been many complaints on other boards about the film looking "overlit," but does anyone in cyberspace really have a properly-calibrated monitor? Sheesh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Thought I'd bump up this thread now that the teaser trailer's live.

 

Sweet anamorphic photography and classic Spielberg compositions and cutting. There have been many complaints on other boards about the film looking "overlit," but does anyone in cyberspace really have a properly-calibrated monitor? Sheesh.

 

I don't see enough of that beautiful, classical lighting style anymore. Some people call it overlit. It's certainly isn't that realistic but it sure looks good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

If you really can't sleep unless you know what camera was used to shoot a film, go to youtube and enter Indiana Jones 4 and look at the hundreds of behind the scenes videos where you will see the people, the cameras, the cars, the trucks, the extras, the equipment, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't help but feel that some of the colors are too saturated and the blacks are a little too deep, in comparison to the original three films. This is just my first impression however, judging from my computer's monitor which I realize is not the best gauge. However, I am also used to seeing these films on the old VHS format (I know, I know) before the digital re mastering took place, but to me the desaturated pallet simply ads to the look of those films and the old serial feel. Regardless, I am really pumped to see this fourth installment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While we're on the topic of Indiana Jones I also have a quick question- In Temple of Doom there is a classic shot of Indy on the rope bridge, where he is holding his shoulder bag with the stones in it over the side in one hand and a machete in the other- I think the camera pushes in on him as he spots the main "bad guy" of the film who stands at the far end of the ravine. This particular shot always looked like it was captured on a different stock, to me, than the rest of the film. Just curious if anybody might know what the story is on this shot, or if maybe I'm just crazy? Thanks a bunch.

-Scott

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Probably they just lost the daylight and had to push the stock. That movie used 5247 (100T) and 5294 (400T) I believe. So there's a chance they had to switch to 400T, or just decided to push 100T.

 

Also, this was pre-digital efx days so if there was any mistake in the shot, like some rig had to be removed with a bit of matte painting, the shot would have been a dupe, and if it were unplanned, they might be duping 35mm anamorphic footage rather than shoot a plate on VistaVision. But that shot to me always just looked like they lost the daylight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The effects shots in the trailer aren't even close to being finished and I doubt it's been properly timed by Kaminski at this point, so those IMDb complaints are sounding really stupid right now.

 

Seems like they went closer to the mood and feel of Temple of Doom, rather than Raiders or Last Crusade.

 

Looks exciting though, can't wait!

Edited by Jonathan Bowerbank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I'm as big a fan as the next fan, but I don't see the point in being this nitpicky about a teaser trailer. Besides, movies, to some extent, are always a product of the time and place they are made. To expect otherwise is being unfair and unrealistic. This isn't a science experiment, it's an expensive major motion picture that has to earn hundreds of millions of dollars to break even after costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I just returned from shooting and found out thanks to this thread that the teaser trailer has arrived. Watching it, I must say I did not notice anything that would justify the degree of criticism that has been leveled at this basic assemblage of material! If you go to the original website > videos > trailers, you will find the old-school teaser trailer for The Last Crusade. Now imagine they would have put up such a thing today with "Indy IV"...

 

The idea of absolute consistency in film look, film stock, lighting, amd actually much more so the acting style and quality of the set design across 4 films spanning longer than the lifetime of most forum members is ridiculous. Even if you dust of the exact same toolboxes from Last Crusade, today's working methods would undermine this experiment. You cannot make a silent-movie era film today just as much, even with all the efforts in the world. History cannot be caught in a time capsule.

 

However, with regard to what is shown and what Steven Spielberg wanted to accomplish, namely to stay as close as possible to the cinematic and cinematographical production methods of the previous films and how they evolved over the orignal trilogy over their dozen year period (most Indy I camera-"stylism" would be regarded as "amateurish" today...) so that the contemporary film production looks would look as if a natural continuation of that trilogy evolution occurs further into "Indy IV, I personally think that he achieves THAT rather well. This film will not tear the Indy tetralogy apart - that much is certain now - as happened to George Lucas who really (willingly or unvoluntarily?) ripped his Star Wars heptalogy (I include the Christmas Special as an extra Episode in this ;) ) apart despite the opposite intention. On the matter of the friendly but public competition between Spielberg and Lucas, it's 1:0.

 

Actually, for the first time since "Schindler's List", I must say that I sense something of that Spielbergian excitement and spirit that a Spielberg film inately had and brought with it in the 1970s to the early 90s; as I said, until "Schindler's List. Since then, his directorial work as become almost exchangeable with any other director's work... I think that Spielberg is on the right track to re-acquaint himself with what he stands for!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a new note, as discussed in another topic, I am almost certain that they are shooting exr for the new film.

As I was looking for exr for a commercial throughout the world a year ago, I found out there was a very large freezer storage of it ear marked for an up coming production. So I couldn´t get any. And I naturally thought; the next spielberg Indiana Jones thing is of the kinda budget to realise such a thing.

What do you guys think??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Yeah, this Indy IV = EXR rumour has been going around for considerable time, and it is a very appealing idea considering Spielberg's stance to stress the cinematic consistency and production look for the tetralogy, plus stay true to cine-film as opposed to George Lucas.

 

The problem I have with that, esp. in light of all the recent love-celebration of EXR (ironically in light of Vision3 hitting the market), is that none of the Indy films were actually shot on EXR. "Last Crusade" was shot on Eastmancolor, nearly a year before 5245, 5248 and 5296 were introduced. It would have taken anyone at Amblin quite some foresight to see how the Indy franchise would continue in the next two decades plus anticipatory knowledge how film stocks would develop look-wise into the Vision-years (then nearly a decade away) to pre-empt any acquisition-of-raw-film-supply issues and have someone at Kodak stash a batch away.

 

Having said that - don't misunderstand me here - I would like to see this rumour true just to see how 19 to 5 year old EXR would look today used in a contemporary production. But I personally doubt that there is any substance to this rumour (which leaves the question open who supposedly has earmarked a larger batch of EXR remainders).

 

All this "keep the look" talk is quite something. Spielberg sure sold a UK premiere ticket to me for Indy IV :)

 

After the publication of the teaser trailer, may I ask what makes you so sure that EXR is indeed actually used, Frederik?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I doubt that they are using the last EXR 500T stock, 5298. Whether or not it's been in a freezer, it would be aged and subject to random radiation over time. Kaminski never seemed to like it as much as 5279 (Vision-1 500T) anyway.

 

What he was fond of was EXR 200T, using it on many Spielberg films, including most of "The Terminal". Don't know if there is a chance that some of that is available and safe after storage, at least slower film is less prone to long-term aging due to ambient cosmic radiation.

 

Kodak is still making 5279 I believe, or at least they were until recently - Kaminsky used it on "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly". He used Fuji for the day scenes, like he did for "War of the Worlds" too (Fuji outside, 5279 for interiors and nights.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

BOKEH RENTALS

Film Gears

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

CINELEASE

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...