Paul Bartok Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 “Argo” was shot on regular film. The frames were then cut in half and blown up by 200% to increase their graininess. A interesting thing todo in a DI world. just thought i'd share. http://www.forafewmoviesmore.com/film-review/argo-film-review/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Millar Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Some people call that shooting 16mm with 35mm lenses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David J Paradise Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Apparently some scenes were filmed in 2-perf, others in Super 35, Super 16 and even Super 8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn Martin Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 “Argo” was shot on regular film. The frames were then cut in half and blown up by 200% to increase their graininess. That sounds like a novice's description of 2-perf. This is covered in this month's AC. They shot 35mm anamorphic for Hollywood and Washington DC, 2-perf for Iran, Alexa (spherical for Istanbul, anamorphic for DC night driving shots), 4-perf Super 35 for some blue and greenscreen work, and Super 16 and Super 8 for protestor-filmed footage at the embassy. It also got a 4K DI. As an aside, I saw the 4K DCP on a Sony 4K projector, but since it had the 3D lens on, it was actually cut down to 2K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Opgenorth Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1024648/technical Check out the IMDB page! Allot of RED fanboys argue that the ARRIRAW 2.8K sucks blown up to 4K but I'd be interested to see how many pixel peepers could tell on a 35mm print master or even the typical 4K distribution (though I see they used Hawk V-lites aren't those 1.33x squeeze or both 1.33 and 2x?). A true mix of cameras and formats. I love the look of 2-perf 35mm (which is what I think OP was talking about). I'd love to some day look at the 4K DI scans and possibly view it up close at 4K to see the grain pattern. Super 8 blown up to 4K! My God!! I wonder what speed stock they used! :o Probably had to be fast stock because the grains gonna show! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Bartok Posted November 10, 2012 Author Share Posted November 10, 2012 That sounds like a novice's description of 2-perf. This is covered in this month's AC. They shot 35mm anamorphic for Hollywood and Washington DC, 2-perf for Iran, Alexa (spherical for Istanbul, anamorphic for DC night driving shots), 4-perf Super 35 for some blue and greenscreen work, and Super 16 and Super 8 for protestor-filmed footage at the embassy. It also got a 4K DI. As an aside, I saw the 4K DCP on a Sony 4K projector, but since it had the 3D lens on, it was actually cut down to 2K. That was a direct quote from the article, no need for your sassiness mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Stevens Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 It also got a 4K DI. As an aside, I saw the 4K DCP on a Sony 4K projector, but since it had the 3D lens on, it was actually cut down to 2K. Can someone please shoot all the @**holes responsible for that! Honestly, I am so sick and tired of going to see flicks only to find the 3D setup has been left in place because they can't bother to change it back. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn Martin Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 That was a direct quote from the article, no need for your sassiness mate. I know it was, and the article got it from the trivia page on IMDB. I wasn't calling you a novice. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Can someone please shoot all the @**holes responsible for that! Honestly, I am so sick and tired of going to see flicks only to find the 3D setup has been left in place because they can't bother to change it back. And the same thing happened yesterday with Skyfall, also 4K! I don't think I've ever been to a theater that changed it, even though it takes all of ten minutes (so I've heard). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Opgenorth Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 Can someone please shoot all the @**holes responsible for that! Honestly, I am so sick and tired of going to see flicks only to find the 3D setup has been left in place because they can't bother to change it back. +1. Projectionists probably don't really care or don't even know...I have a few friends I know who work at big chain movie theaters that work as projectionists and only one of them really knew what they were talking about and thats because they ran one of the last 70mm theaters! Not that I could tell the difference but I want to see the best image possible if I'm paying the amount for it! I bet if you complain they'll likely initialize a new policy about it...might take a while though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemalettin Sert Posted November 12, 2012 Share Posted November 12, 2012 My friend worked on this feature (Turkey sequence-fake Iran scenes) i ll ask her about speef of Film Stock.But she mainly worked with Alexa in here.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Frank Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Hope it's ok to bump this... Before I ask this question, let me go ahead and say that I'm definitely a novice. I remember reading some stuff about The Bourne Supremacy, that they had done a "35mm blow-up," and I'm just wondering if that's the same thing as shooting Argo in 35mm 2-perf as you all are saying here? The way I understand it is: you can either shoot with anamorphic lenses, which uses the whole frame and then is condensed down to correct the aspect ratio, and this will be the least grainy way to do it because you are utilizing the whole frame of 35mm film, OR you can shoot it with regular 35mm lenses (spherical?) and simply crop the frame to the 2.35:1 aspect ratio. Which is, in effect, blowing up the frame instead of taking the whole frame and squeezing it to a wider aspect. Do I have any of this right? And if so, is this what they did with some of the scenes in Argo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Black Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Hope it's ok to bump this... Before I ask this question, let me go ahead and say that I'm definitely a novice. I remember reading some stuff about The Bourne Supremacy, that they had done a "35mm blow-up," and I'm just wondering if that's the same thing as shooting Argo in 35mm 2-perf as you all are saying here? The way I understand it is: you can either shoot with anamorphic lenses, which uses the whole frame and then is condensed down to correct the aspect ratio, and this will be the least grainy way to do it because you are utilizing the whole frame of 35mm film, OR you can shoot it with regular 35mm lenses (spherical?) and simply crop the frame to the 2.35:1 aspect ratio. Which is, in effect, blowing up the frame instead of taking the whole frame and squeezing it to a wider aspect. Do I have any of this right? And if so, is this what they did with some of the scenes in Argo? You almost have it right! It's kinda more complicated because there is Super35, 2perf and 3perf. Super35 uses more than the whole frame because it uses the soundtrack area too but then it is usually cropped down to whatever aspect ratio is needed. 3 perf uses the whole frame but the frame is smaller because it only pulls down 3 perferations (the holes at the side of the film) at a time. I think the aspect ratio of the whole frame is somewhat similar to 16:9. It's used a lot for tv stuff shot on film as obviously it uses a lot less film and magazines last longer. 2 perf uses the whole frame but it only pulls down 2 of the holes at the side at a time. This gives an aspect ratio something like 2.40:1 or similar. If you want to use it to shoot in 16:9 then you need to crop the sides to make it less wide. It costs half as much to shoot and the running times of mags are twice as long! This is sometimes also referred to as Techniscope by some people. Sometimes these are combined with Super35. love Freya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Black Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Super 8 blown up to 4K! My God!! I wonder what speed stock they used! :o Probably had to be fast stock because the grains gonna show! Well lots of films have had Super8 blown up to 35mm, it's no different in some ways. I think they wanted the grain to show. I'm guessing that's the whole reason they shot those bits in Super8 because they wanted a more grainy look for that part of the film. Freya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Black Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) Can someone please shoot all the @**holes responsible for that! Honestly, I am so sick and tired of going to see flicks only to find the 3D setup has been left in place because they can't bother to change it back. Doesn't that also make it look odd optically in some way? I'm not really familiar with the whole 3d in cinemas thing. Freya Edited February 25, 2013 by Freya Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Will Montgomery Posted February 25, 2013 Premium Member Share Posted February 25, 2013 Here's the DP discussing the film... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregg MacPherson Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 (edited) I felt a lot of the scenes set in Iran had what looked like over sharpened grain. Especially noticable with some ECUs of faces in the embasy apartment at night. It was quite distracting for me. I would have prefered watching a softer image, more natural looking grain. Why didn't he just shoot the core narrative on 3 perf and use 16mm and super 8 for the the newscamera and personal stuff being shot? Edit: Will posted the video while I wrote that. I'll see if everything is explained in that. Edited February 25, 2013 by Gregg MacPherson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Cary Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 I had seen the Kodak interview with Prieto so I knew when to look for the Alexa footage. I watched the film on Blu-ray on a 65" LED LCD and thought the grain looked AMAZING!!! When the Alexa footage was cut in it was almost too jarring (the cleanliness). I wonder if they tried to throw some post grain or even overlay actual scanned film grain if it would have made a difference. Not for better or worse but just for continuities sake. I noticed more drifting with the focus on the Alexa stuff that would have been masked a bit by that chunky 500ASA :) I'm not a 1st AC and think they have one of the toughest jobs in the industry! It's just so much more noticeable with that stark clean image. Prieto said they couldn't get the exposure they needed on 500T so they went with the Alexa. What a great use of digital capture... There's a tool for every job! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregg MacPherson Posted February 28, 2013 Share Posted February 28, 2013 I watched the interview with the DoP patiently explaining the rational for the different looks in different locations. To my eye these differences were too gross. The core narrative interweaves all these notional locations and having a more consistent look would have glued the movie together better. I did really enjoy the movie. I like the idea of 16mm as a production medium and i really admire his approach with testing and experimentation. But I really don't think the grossly different looks, 35 vs 16 to notionally separate Hollywood, CIA, Iran was a great idea at all. Definitely not the kind of embedded defect that Best Picture should allow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Zimmerman Posted March 1, 2013 Share Posted March 1, 2013 (edited) I messed around with a 2 perf Kinor camera for about a year. The problem with 2 perf isnt the format, it's the scanners! Like academy, 2 Perf does not use the soundtrack area. Since the scanner can't zoom to scan at the sensors full 2K width (which is Super 35 including the soundtrack), you end up with a less detailed scan than s16 film would have. 2 perf would look very cool if 4K scanning was cheaper (or they started making special 2perf heads for scanners). With a 2k scan you don't see the true film grain, you see video pixels. --At least far as I know... --Same thing with academy shot films, with a 4K scan, Taxi Driver on the new Blu ray looks terrific with smooth grain! Edited March 1, 2013 by Steve Zimmerman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Will Montgomery Posted March 1, 2013 Premium Member Share Posted March 1, 2013 2 perf is about 1.6x larger than Super 16 in 1.78 but I see the point on the scan... you'd need a 4k scanner to get roughly 2k worth of data out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Steven Beverly Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 Affleck actually used 3 different stocks and 3 different processes for each major sequence. The CIA stuff was done in anamorphic to give it a clean refined look, then he used S35 in a high saturation/contrast stock for the Hollywood stuff to give it the over the tops glitz looks and then used 2 perf with an older stock to give it the gritty, intense look for the Teheran stuff, I was actually very impressed by his choices and attention to detail. I saw the making of it day before yesterday on Dish. He mentioned the stocks he used but I can't remember what he said they were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now