Genesis for "Superman Returns"

[K Borowski]

I wouldn't shoot a wedding with 35 mm film.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I wouldn't shoot a wedding with 35mm either. I'd shoot it with 70mm! The people that were shooting weddings with 35mm (except for the very informal (read as drunk) shots) were the cheap ones that went digital as soon as the technology gave "acceptable" quality. 35mm is a movie format, always will be, and while it's great for snapshots and journalism, it should not be used for applications that involve making anything bigger than an 8x10. Even at the 8x10 size, there is a noticeable difference between 35mm and medium format. The problem I have with digital is not only in the resolution area (this goes for still and motion photography), but is in the colors and the contrast range. Film has a BIG advantage here. I've seen big enlargements from film and digital and digital just doesn't compare. Frankly, still photographers have backtracked in terms of image resolution over the last 50 years. Now they try to get away with Digital SLRs and 35mm where only 4x5 will do. Also, big budget movies were always shot on 65mm in the past. Then what happened? On the other hand, when your image is refreshed twenty-four times a second, the resolution of 35mm usually satisfies me, unless someone has fu**ed with it digitally, which degrades the image as sure as shooting through a haze filter will, or they shoot it 500 speed 3 perf pushed a stop because they are too cheap to light for it. Before people used to shoot everything outdoors on 50 speed film, now they're using the same 320T or 500T that they use indoors with 4 diffusion filters and an 80A slapped on front of the camera. Frankly, I feel this is akin to the shortcuts that still photographers took before they went digital. The same thing is probably going to happen once the digital MP cameras get good enough to pass 500T pushed 2 stops. "Good enough and we'll fix the rest in post" is going to become the prevalent attitude amongst these directors. This is not about technological advancement; it is about making things cheaper and easier! However, for the people that appreciate slow films and fine grain (which, believe it or not is a LOT finer on a film 3 1/2 stops slower than another film), the ART of filmmaking is going to continue for a good long while.

 

~Karl

[Guest Peter Waal]

I wouldn't shoot a wedding with 35mm either.  I'd shoot it with 70mm! 

 

You make a lot of excellent points. As I've said many times, if 65 mm (70 mm) were the standard for image capture in the film industry, digital capture still be a long way away from being practical. Unfortunately, 65 mm never became the standard. I could be wrong, but I don't believe there have been more than 200 feature films shot in 65 mm or blown up to 70 mm from 35 mm. (I'm not talking about IMAX.) That's a very small number. I think film has one chance at maintaining its hegemony in movies, and that is if Kodak were to cut the cost of 65 mm neg to the point where it's on par with 35 mm neg. That would be too tempting for a lot of people to pass up.

 

BTW: I was just using DI as catchall term for digital post. I realize you don't need a "DI" for Genesis footage -- see, there we go again. You can't call what Genesis spits out "footage" either.

[John Sprung]

if Kodak were to cut the cost of 65 mm neg to the point where it's on par with 35 mm neg.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

.... they'd go broke. I'd like to have gasoline for $1.20 a gallon, too. Not gonna happen.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Max Jacoby]

I definitely want to make a movie in 65mm when the right project comes along. I have yet to figure out the costs difference to 35mm, but that will mostly be in raw stock and developping. The rental of the 765 will be the same as a 35mm camera.

[K Borowski]

Good for you Audiris! If you need a film loader for the project, be you in Africa, Antarctica, or on another planet, let me be your film loader (please shoot it on EXR 50D)! I do think that Kodak could come down a little bit on their prices Peter, but it would probably mean the end of R&D of better film products, a drop in dividends, which would cause Kodak's stock to fall, and a quicker decline in the film industry. Here's my qualm with everyone who laments not being able to shoot with 65mm: you can get the same quality using 35mm nowadays! Just as Quentin Tarantino shot the whole of Pulp Fiction on EXR 50D 7245 with quality nearing fast 35mm, so too can one shoot 5245 with quality nearing 65mm. Granted there will be issues with depth of field dissimilarities as well as more lighting requirements, but it is quite doable. In fact, considering the grain of older film stocks, even 65mm stocks, 5245 might actually surpasss some of the older 65mm movies in sharpness.

 

Regards.

~Karl Borowski

[John Pytlak RIP]

The 70mm prints of "Titanic" looked very good. Super-35 and even a bit of 2-perf 35mm Techniscope:

 

http://www.theasc.com/magazine/dec97/titanic/pgs35/pg1.htm

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en...ytlak/70mm1.pdf

 

IMAX has also used their proprietary "DMR" process to make 15-perf 70mm prints from 35mm feature origination (e.g., "Apollo 13", "Matrix", "Harry Potter", "Willie Wonka", "Batman Begins", etc.)

 

Peter Waal wrote:

 

I don't believe there have been more than 200 feature films shot in 65 mm or blown up to 70 mm from 35 mm.

 

The IMDB lists OVER 600 films that had 70mm prints:

 

http://www.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?PFM:70%20mm

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

Unfortunately, 65 mm never became the standard. I could be wrong, but I don't believe there have been more than 200 feature films shot in 65 mm or blown up to 70 mm from 35 mm.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Erm, have you considered that this might be simply be because film stocks got a lot better over the last couple of decades?

 

Also don't forget there's a lot more to shooting 65mm than just the film and camera; most lenses designed for 35mm won't cover 65mm, so your choice of glass will be severely curtailed.

[Max Jacoby]

Both Arri and Panavision have complete sets of 65mm lenses to go with their cameras.

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

Both Arri and Panavision have complete sets of 65mm lenses to go with their cameras.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What? Of every lens in their fleets? A comprehensive range of focal lengths, maybe, but there's a lot more to it than that!

[Boone Hudgins]

Just as Quentin Tarantino shot the whole of Pulp Fiction on EXR 50D 7245 with quality nearing fast 35mm, so too can one shoot 5245 with quality nearing 65mm.

 

I thought Pulp Fiction was 35mm anamorphic. It seems to me after Tarantino's reaction to Super 35 in Resevoir Dogs, he would stay away from anything requiring a blowup, even 16mm. Until Kill Bill.

 

(IMDb says there were 16mm prints made. For festivals?)

[John Sprung]

Both Arri and Panavision have complete sets of 65mm lenses to go with their cameras.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But how long has it been since they've designed anything for the 65/70 system? Doesn't most of that stuff pre-date the era of aspherical elements?

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Max Jacoby]

Arri designed their 765 system in 1989 and Panavision have Primo lenses for their 65mm cameras.

[Guest fstop]

Look up in the air - It;s a turd, it's a shame!...:

 

You might get to see an HD camera soon!!

[Sam Wells]

5245 might actually surpasss some of the older 65mm movies in sharpness.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I love 45 but 52/7274 and 52/7246 are sharper than 45 actually. (74 has the edge I think). Let alone med speed Vision 2. Grain wise, 45 is still the champ in negative. It can "seem" to be sharper in long shots, etc because of it's color properties. But cu's with fine detail will prove otherwise.

 

-Sam

[Ignacio Aguilar]

I thought Pulp Fiction was 35mm anamorphic.

 

It was, indeed (Kodak 5245, not 7245). It was very sharp and fine-grained on the big screen, IMO.

 

Erm, have you considered that this might be simply be because film stocks got a lot better over the last couple of decades?

 

I agree with you, but considering that the same film stocks could be used for 65mm photography, 65mm is still superior than 35mm.

 

I can't wait to see Terrence Malick's The New World, which was shot both in 35mm anamorphic and 65mm (by Emmanuel Lubezki) according to most sources.

[Guest fstop]

anyone recognise any of the equipment from this Superman Returns set pic?:

 

[Keith Mottram]

anyone recognise any of the equipment from this Superman Returns set pic?:

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The CRT's look like Sony BVM-D14H5E which are HD/SD 800 line 14" monitors, which really doesn't give much away. However the flat screens have a sticker stating NTSC which would imply an SD video tap, unless they are converting HD to NTSC for viewing on non-24p screens. So no definitive news really. Although I would have thought this meant 35mm.

 

Keith

[Michael Most]

The CRT's look like Sony BVM-D14H5E which are HD/SD 800 line 14" monitors, which really doesn't give much away.  However the flat screens have a sticker stating NTSC which would imply an SD video tap, unless they are converting HD to NTSC for viewing on non-24p screens. So no definitive news really.  Although I would have thought this meant 35mm.

 

Looks to me like an anamorphic film setup. The two "live" monitors are 4:3 and seem to have squeezed images on them. The top left monitors are for playback (also 4:3), and the top right monitor is labeled "PS NTSC," which to me indicates Pan and Scan NTSC (i.e., unsqueezed, common center for TV). If you compare the image on this monitor to the live monitors, that's exactly what it seems to be.

 

Of course, the source for this could also be a Genesis, although if I'm to use the 4:3 video tap image as any kind of indicator, this is unlikely.

[Mark Allen]

Found him!

 

[Max Jacoby]

Looks to me like an anamorphic film setup.

 

Not sure on this, there is too much information on top and bottom for it to be anamorphic.

[Guest Jim Murdoch]

Not sure on this, there is too much information on top and bottom for it to be

anamorphic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What you're seeing is standard 16x9 HD video "Super-35-ed". In other words, the

camera is producing standard 1080-line video, but only 818 lines of it will actually

appear on the movie screen.

 

 

 

The Genesis is definitely being used; here's a location picture from a Sydney

newspaper, that's definitely a Genesis on the crane.

 

 

 

So basically Superman Returns, like Star Wars, is being captured and

recorded on 1920 x 818 pixels. After the magic anti-alias spatial filter sitting on

top of the CCD has done its work, this leaves a resolution of about 900 x 400

lines. That means that the maximum resolution the Genesis can capture is a

pattern of 450 vertical black lines across the width of the frame, or 200 horizontal

black lines from top to bottom.

 

On the other hand standard 35mm film can easily record four thousand lines

across the width of the frame, that is, you could record a test chart with two

thousand black lines on a white background!

 

Naturally you need a damned good lens to do this, but it can be done. It most

certainly can't be done with any current generation video camera.

 

But so many people claim that "they can't tell the difference". Well, maybe they

can't, but somehow, I don't think that's going to matter.

Edited April 17, 2005 by Jim Murdoch

[Alvin Pingol]

Found him!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Haha! :lol: Nice one

[John Sprung]

1920 x 818 pixels.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's three RGB stripes wide by two photosites high per HD pixel, or 5760 x 1636 photosites on the chip for a scope image. That gives them 1920 complete RGB sample sets across, by 1636 vertically.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Ilmari Reitmaa]

It's three RGB stripes wide by two photosites high per HD pixel, or 5760 x 1636 photosites on the chip for a scope image.  That gives them 1920 complete RGB sample sets across, by 1636 vertically.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ah, yes. Here's a thought (which perhaps you already pretty much implied there, I'm just thinking aloud here):

 

Sampling, say, 1620 vertical lines and then interpolating with an algorithm that would convert three uninterpolated lines into two interpolated ones (much the way that D-20 interpolates) would yield 2.37:1 aspect ratio and full 1920 x 1080 RGB data. Probably even without infringing any Thomson's Dynamic Pixel Management patents... B)

 

Now I'm really just going out on a limb here, but that would make some sense.

Edited April 18, 2005 by Ilmari Reitmaa

[Ilmari Reitmaa]

Sampling, say, 1620 vertical lines

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Horizontal! Horizontal! :rolleyes: