Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 (edited) It’s not really on screen yet – it won’t be until November – but I thought it might be better suited for this section than to In Production. Here’s a glimpse into what Philippe Rousselot prepared: Edited April 12, 2016 by Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manu Delpech Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 Shame to go from film to digital, but the aesthetics are close enough to the Harry Potter films. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 The original plan was to shoot film but only weeks before start of production switched to Alexa . At least it is Panavision anamorphic ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Field Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 Hopefully Joe K doesn't treat the dialogue like a novel. Flick's got potential to top anything from the original series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos Posted April 12, 2016 Author Share Posted April 12, 2016 It kind of looks boring. This overused, dull rusty, faded-photo colour scheme. Yawn. Perhaps it will look better on a bigger screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manu Delpech Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 The original plan was to shoot film but only weeks before start of production switched to Alexa . At least it is Panavision anamorphic ! Oh mannnnnnnnnnnnnn, why? Lab problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 I don't know no problems with the two labs here in London plus Alpha one mobile lab. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted April 13, 2016 Premium Member Share Posted April 13, 2016 It's great they're doing spin-off's of the Harry Potter world. I much prefer them, then the crappy comic book movies, which are re-hashed over and over again. Tis a shame it's not film... but since it's probably going to be finished in 2k like most movies are today and projected with your local theaters out of calibration digital cinema projector... who really cares what it's shot with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Field Posted April 13, 2016 Share Posted April 13, 2016 Tis a shame it's not film... but since it's probably going to be finished in 2k like most movies are today and projected with your local theaters out of calibration digital cinema projector... who really cares what it's shot with. Wouldn't it be 4K because of the magnitude of the project? IPs this big usually get IMAX releases like the last Harry Potters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted April 14, 2016 Premium Member Share Posted April 14, 2016 Hey, star wars was distributed in 2k. Sure, there will be a special IMAX version... but the standard 2D release will most likely be 2k, just like MOST movies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landon D. Parks Posted April 14, 2016 Share Posted April 14, 2016 (edited) Which is why I never understood the push for 4K digital cinema. 4k finishing is too much for even most big Hollywood movies, and as such almost everything is finished post in 2k. 2k produces a pretty good image similar to that of a film release print. I fail to see why we have this push for higher and higher projection resolutions.... Once things get too sharp, it's starts to looks less realistic for cinema. Don't even get me started on the 4k TV thing... Waste of money and resources. Edited April 14, 2016 by Landon D. Parks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin R Probyn Posted April 14, 2016 Share Posted April 14, 2016 Yes but better to start off at least 4K capture.. as you will lose about 20% resolution when debayered.. so the F65 ..6K sensor actually becomes more like a "real" 4K res.. if you shoot 2K you,ll have less than HD.. with a CMOS debayer sensor anyway.. maybe one reason everyone likes the F35.. Personally I agree the 4K for tv thing is about shifting TV,s off the shelves ..although camera,s that down sample off a 4K sensor to HD on the fly can have advantages .. or shooting 4K for HD you can crop,stabilize, pan,zoom the 4K frame .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Black Posted April 14, 2016 Share Posted April 14, 2016 Hey, star wars was distributed in 2k. Sure, there will be a special IMAX version... but the standard 2D release will most likely be 2k, just like MOST movies. Isn't digital IMAX still generally 2K? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freya Black Posted April 14, 2016 Share Posted April 14, 2016 It kind of looks boring. This overused, dull rusty, faded-photo colour scheme. Yawn. Perhaps it will look better on a bigger screen. Phew! Glad it's not just me. The second trailer especially looked like ass. Not sure it looks that compelling in general to be honest too. Something slightly boring about it all but it might just be the trailer. Lead actor isn't very engaging so far either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Aapo Lettinen Posted April 14, 2016 Premium Member Share Posted April 14, 2016 I believe the biggest factor could be VFX for the Alexa vs. Film choice. much easier to do the fx for digital image..easier keying, less noise/grain matching, etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted April 14, 2016 Premium Member Share Posted April 14, 2016 Isn't digital IMAX still generally 2K? Ya know, it's a good question. My friends over at FotoKem, who produce most of the IMAX DCP's tell me MOST of them are 4k. Star Wars in IMAX was 4k, but it was 3D, so does that mean it was 2x2k streams? I saw Jurassic World in IMAX 3D and it was absolutely 4k. Yet, Rogue Nation in 2D IMAX was absolutely 2k. So yea, it's a good question, with unfortunately no direct answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landon D. Parks Posted April 14, 2016 Share Posted April 14, 2016 (edited) I think it's also important to denote the difference between normal IMAX, and the IMAX in your typical megaplex. Having been very impressed with the IMAX at the Indiana Museum Center and the Smithsonian IMAX (the 100' wide versions), even calling these 'fakes' (LieMax) at the multiplex an IMAX screen is a bit appalling to me. Basically, we're talking a screen that is maybe 20% bigger than the standard large cinema screen, with a forced re-arrangement of the seats to bring them closer to the screen to 'fake' it even being bigger than it is. Sure, the sound system is okay and maybe a bit of an improvement over a standard cinema auditorium, but that will probably soon change once Dolby Atmos becomes standard. So the real question is: Are we talking about real IMAX or fake IMAX? If it's multiplex it's fake, and in which case 2k is probably plenty of resolution, since the screen really isn't that much bigger. Now, trying to display a 2k image on the Smithsonian's IMAX screen might pose more of a problem. Last I heard LieMax still uses 2k Christie Projectors... So finishing 4k for these screens probably won't help matters any. Edited April 14, 2016 by Landon D. Parks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landon D. Parks Posted April 14, 2016 Share Posted April 14, 2016 As for 'Fantastic Beasts', I'm less impressed. It appears to me to be another one of Hollywood's attempts at beating a dead horse. Harry Potter was a great series of movies - indeed some of the most successful in cinema history.... However, I feel that this film exists for one goal: to continue to have Warner Bros. ride the Hogwarts Express. It could surprise me and be good, though I somehow doubt it'll possess the same magic that the Potter series did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manu Delpech Posted April 14, 2016 Share Posted April 14, 2016 Maybe but JK Rowling wrote the screenplay. That's something. David Yates who also made the best Harry Potter film (Deathly Hallows Part 2), DH Part 1, Half Blood Prince and Order Of The Phoenix is directing, it's in good hands. The cast is great too (Ezra Miller, Colin Farrell, Eddie Redmayne, etc) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landon D. Parks Posted April 14, 2016 Share Posted April 14, 2016 (edited) Yates was a good director, though my favorite film from the series (and my favorite all around director for the series) is Alfonso Cuaron's Prisoner of Azkaban. Yates was a very good director though, and It's a tough call between the final 2 films and the 3rd for me, in terms of overall enjoyment. Thankfully they didn't get Columbus to direct this... Ugh... I really haven't followed the new film that much, and didn't know that the movie was written by J.K. I knew she wrote a short story set in that world, but didn't really care for it that well on paper. Edited April 14, 2016 by Landon D. Parks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Field Posted April 14, 2016 Share Posted April 14, 2016 They need that Quidditch textbook she wrote adapted into a sports movie with a He Got Game/Invincible vibe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos Posted April 15, 2016 Author Share Posted April 15, 2016 Phew! Glad it's not just me. The second trailer especially looked like ass. Not sure it looks that compelling in general to be honest too. Something slightly boring about it all but it might just be the trailer. Lead actor isn't very engaging so far either. :lol: Right back at ya! I thought people would jump at me in horror with bewilderment and disagreement. It really looks very nondescript, and the digital sharpness isn’t helping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KH Martin Posted April 15, 2016 Share Posted April 15, 2016 They need that Quidditch textbook she wrote adapted into a sports movie with a He Got Game/Invincible vibe. And they can score it with that 'smack my snitch up' song. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landon D. Parks Posted April 16, 2016 Share Posted April 16, 2016 (edited) Please, don't give Warner Brothers any ideas... If Beast's is a success, next we'll see a trailer for: "Quidditch: Rise of the Brooms". I'm pretty sure James Cameron will direct it, since it'll be the new 3D spectacular that will set the standards for all future movies.Mark my words. Not that I dislike Cameron or anything, just his steadfast stance on 3D taking over the cinema world. I blame him for it. Edited April 16, 2016 by Landon D. Parks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Landon D. Parks Posted April 24, 2016 Share Posted April 24, 2016 After seeing the new trailer, I'm starting to rethink my opinion on fantastic beasts. It's looking more and more like it could be a good movie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViuDsy7yb8M 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