Jump to content
manigandan srinivasan

Top 10 Films to Watch for Cinematographers

Recommended Posts

 

Wince. Are you OK?

 

 

 

 

You philistine! That's one of my favourite films!

 

Let's rooooock!

 

 

Yes the original is great !!.. number 2 also ok.. but they have gone the usual prequel road to ruin.. they are just wringing the last dollars out now..

Edited by Robin R Probyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A great movie with a minimalist but yet fully live cinematography is Lost in Translation, from Sofia Coppola. The movie was filmed with a low budged and certain gorilla style, and yet has a beautiful quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE. shot very creatively with an Eclair NPR and a Bolex. It's amazing what they did with the budget and everyone loves that shot from the under the swing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't Evil Dead filmed on S-16? That was a bit of a hit in its day. I remember watching it on VHS with work mates very late at night in a shed out on the edge of Mt Isa, Queensland, back in the eighties. We were slightly sloshed, and got spooked by the film as we were in a creepy area, very lonesome. At one point, someone's hat started to move across the floor as if genuinely possessed by a demon or something. We jumped up, some grabbing pick handles or whatever was available to hand. Someone threw something at the hat. The hair was standing up on the backs of our necks. There was a large toad under the hat. We lowered our weapons and all burst out laughing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Evil Dead" was shot on regular 16mm on an Arri BL and an Arri S...IN EKTACHROME, with the original theatrical aspect ratio of 1.33:1. It was intended for full commercial exhibition but was relegated to limited exhibition through an independent distributor. This framing is what existed for many years and Sam Raimi was fine with it until...

The first widescreen version of Evil Dead was created in 2001 with Bruce Campbell supervising and Sam Raimi signing off. The result of this is a "tilt and scan" version of the film where an artificial tilt was added to ensure that important picture information was included in the frame. Some fans were upset that the "new framing" still removed a lot of picture information so...

The recent Blu-ray Disc release features a new widescreen version created by Sam Raimi himself which corrects for as much of the 1.78:1 framing errors as possible and also reduces the amount of artificial tilts. This new framing is the one that Sam Raimi now prefers as it is the closest to how he originally wanted the film to look when it was shown theatrically.

 

I for one can't wait till Ektachrome is back from the dead!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7249 is VNF process, not E6. VNF was discontinued in about 2003. E6 is much more expensive.

There wasn't an E6-process 16mm. stock until quite recently, presumably to replace Kodachrome. It was then discontinued.

Edited by Mark Dunn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7249 is VNF process, not E6. VNF was discontinued in about 2003. E6 is much more expensive.

There wasn't an E6-process 16mm. stock until quite recently, presumably to replace Kodachrome. It was then discontinued.

 

I looked it up and the 7249 seems to be an ECN-2 process. I used to shoot 7240 VNF daily up until a few years ago. Yale Labs still processes it. It was marked Ektachrome on the box, but I think it was process vnf-1.

I have no idea. Can't find a picture of a box of 7249 to see what it looked like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ECN is the neg process. I can assure you that '49 was VNF process. I've used it and processed it.

Yale must be using a modified E6 process because the VNF chemicals fell foul of some new environmental regulations over a decade ago, so Kodak discontinued the stock as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple months ago from facebook i asked Tim Philo 'the dp of the evil dead' what stock did you use for evil dead? he replied '' It was the first generation of Ektachrome negative, 7249 I believe. ASA100 in tungsten.''

After that i look Ektachrome film stocks and couldn't find it 7249 listed but i still put this information on imdb Technical Specs page..

 

By the way new blu-ray version of evil dead release with 1.37 original aspect ratio but one of the new release is ''Remastered'' and it look horrible because they clean-up all the grain, the image look plastic-like when you compare other 1.37 release..

post-69480-0-28142700-1511016043_thumb.jpg

 

plastic-
Edited by fatih yıkar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A couple months ago from facebook i asked Tim Philo 'the dp of the evil dead' what stock did you use for evil dead? he replied '' It was the first generation of Ektachrome negative, 7249 I believe. ASA100 in tungsten.''

After that i look Ektachrome film stocks and couldn't find it 7249 listed but i still put this information on imdb Technical Specs page..

 

plastic-

 

Then you should remove it.

Ektachrome isn't negative, it's reversal. The clue is the "chrome" part of the name which has always denoted reversal. The negative equivalent is "color", as in Eastmancolor 7247, which is obviously what he meant- his memory has let him down. '47 was the only Kodak MP neg stock available in 1981.

I am mistaken about 7249, though- it's not a VNF designation. Probably confusing it with '39. '49 was a colour reversal intermediate stock used to save a generation for visual effects, with its own process, CRI-1. It faded very rapidly, which is why Star Wars and many other pictures were effectively unprintable after a few years, but that's another story.

It would be very unusual to shoot a feature on reversal- it's far more problematic to print.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be very unusual to shoot a feature on reversal- it's far more problematic to print.

 

Ironically, my first addition to this post, THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, was a feature shot on Ektachrome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, Mark and fatih, this Youtube video is what gave me second thoughts about using 35mm in my project.

It's a long video so I'll just point out the specific few seconds.

 

2:19 to 2:48 explains it.

 

 

The whole thing is worth watching for film lovers. Ironically Youtube has a built-in grain eliminator so some of what he says isn't visible.

Edited by Samuel Berger
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ektachrome isn't negative, it's reversal. The clue is the "chrome" part of the name which has always denoted reversal. The negative equivalent is "color", as in Eastmancolor 7247, which is obviously what he meant- his memory has let him down. '47 was the only Kodak MP neg stock available in 1981.

 

Mark, i don't understand what you mean EKTACHROME isn't negative, yes i know it's a reversal film but if a movie shot on Ektachrome film isn't that called film negative is Ektachrome film?

 

For example movies like (TexasChainSaw Massacre) is written negative is Ektachrome 25T 7252 - (Buffalo 66) negative is Ektachrome 160T 5239 -(Three Kings) negative is Ektachrome stock or (Domino) one of the negative is Ektachrome 100D 5285 etc...

Edited by fatih yıkar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Mark, i don't understand what you mean EKTACHROME isn't negative, yes i know it's a reversal film but if a movie shot on Ektachrome film isn't that called film negative is Ektachrome film?

 

For example movies like (TexasChainSaw Massacre) is written negative is Ektachrome 25T 7252 - (Buffalo 66) negative is Ektachrome 160T 5239 -(Three Kings) negative is Ektachrome stock or (Domino) one of the negative is Ektachrome 100D 5285 etc...

 

I know you were addressing Mark, but, In those cases, the word "negative" is being used to describe what exact filmstock was run through the camera during the filming process. It doesn't mean that negative film was used.

Ektachrome is reversal film. If it's used in camera, IMDB will list it as the "negative format" used for the production, even if it isn't negative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, Mark and fatih, this Youtube video is what gave me second thoughts about using 35mm in my project.

It's a long video so I'll just point out the specific few seconds.

 

Hi Samuel thank you for answer above and as i know we got same taste and opinion about digital-film argue. It's really great video but i know if i write this so many people on this forum making laugh of me but after all i will say i'm also not finding nowadays movies shot on 16mm look filmic so much :D . I mean grain level looking good but color and texture still that not pleasant for me, yes they looking more vintage than 35mm nowadays but when i watch older movies shot on 16mm they look much better for me (texas chainsaw-evil dead-maniac-lock stock and two smoking barrels-leaving las vegas-clerks-slacker and many others....)

As i know directors use 16mm for more vintage look but color still looking digital i can only blame again digital grading or film stocks :D..

Edited by fatih yıkar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Hamilton gave a lecture once, after which he asked for any questions. Before he accepted any, he said, "one camera, one lens, Kodak ektachrome 200 and natural lighting." All of the hands went down at once. I think he pushed the Ektachrome about 4 stops!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I know you were addressing Mark, but, In those cases, the word "negative" is being used to describe what exact filmstock was run through the camera during the filming process. It doesn't mean that negative film was used.

Ektachrome is reversal film. If it's used in camera, IMDB will list it as the "negative format" used for the production, even if it isn't negative.

Extraordinary. I suppose that's an example of the pitfalls of trying to use imdb as a professional resource.

On another note, I'd be surprised if "Three Kings" had actually been shot on 35mm. VNF. Although thinking about it, with editing on video and a DI, presumably by 1999 it didn't make as much difference as it would have a decade earlier.

Edited by Mark Dunn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of "Three Kings" was shot on 35mm color negative that was skip-bleach processed, and part was shot on 35mm Ektachrome 5285 but cross-processed (ECN2 instead of E6).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So reversal was treated as neg. That was my point, inaccurately expressed. At some point you need neg for release printing, either via interneg or, as here, by cross-processing.

Edited by Mark Dunn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cross processed some shots using 7240 VNF for a short, the result seemed to be "unstable" in that the final print didn't produced 6 months later didn't really match the video rushes. Although, there could be reasons for that, like the transfer was a "one light" from a mix of neg and the cross processed VNF

 

7252 was a low contrast reversal camera film, intended for creating prints. More info in this thread: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=1004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was probably shot on 7247 100T color negative then. Or 7240 125T VNF Ektachrome reversal. See:

https://www.kodak.com/US/es/motion/About/Chronology_Of_Film/1960-1979/default.htm

 

I am mistaken about 7249, though- it's not a VNF designation. Probably confusing it with '39. '49 was a colour reversal intermediate stock used to save a generation for visual effects, with its own process, CRI-1. It faded very rapidly, which is why Star Wars and many other pictures were effectively unprintable after a few years, but that's another story.

It would be very unusual to shoot a feature on reversal- it's far more problematic to print.

 

İ asked again Mr.Tim Philo he replied ''7247. Sorry. It’s been awhile'' so evil dead was not shot on Ektachrome, in some ways movie kinda look like Ektachrome to me but so many scenes not..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So reversal was treated as neg. That was my point, inaccurately expressed. At some point you need neg for release printing, either via interneg or, as here, by cross-processing.

 

 

Until D.I.s became common, yes. There were a few films that developed 35mm reversal film normally, such as "Buffalo 66" and parts of "Blow", but then a dupe was required to create a negative. "Kill Bill" had some normally processed Kodachrome in it. Most 35mm reversal was cross-processed into negative for features in the 1990's, such as in "Clockers".

 

Another reason was simply the lack of E6 or Kodachrome processors that could handle the large amounts of stock shot for a movie, they are normally meant to develop short still camera rolls. So using ECN2 processing was also more convenient besides giving you that stylized look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Ritter Battery



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    Glidecam



    Rig Wheels Passport



    Abel Cine



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    Visual Products



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    Tai Audio



    Paralinx LLC



    Metropolis Post



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    Wooden Camera



    Just Cinema Gear



    FJS International



    G-Force Grips



    Serious Gear



    CineLab


×
×
  • Create New...