James Visiano Posted September 14, 2004 Share Posted September 14, 2004 The international 70mm community is currently buzzing. New Line Cinema a division of Warners is producing (unconfirmed) a 65mm production for 70mm release next year. The Panavision 65mm cameras (unconfirmed)are out shooting the film titled "The New World". There has been a significant "buzz" about 70mm venues by Panavision, DTS and exhibition trade publications. More info as soon as it becomes available. Synopsis: Terrence Malick's take on the Pocahontas tale. The project is set against the backdrop of 17th century America in the nascent Jamestown, Va., settlement where the culture of European explorers collided with that of Native Americans. It focuses on the relationship between explorer John Smith and young Indian princess Pocahontas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adam Frisch FSF Posted September 14, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted September 14, 2004 If that's true - I'll be sooooooooo there! Oh my God - Lubezki, Malick and 65mm! Can you imagine? This made my day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregIrwin Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Hi all... I shot all of the tests for this movie with Terry Malick and Chivo. Only a limited portion of the picture will be shot with 65mm while the rest is primarily anamorphic. 65mm is too expensive to film an entire picture in. Along with limited exhibition outlets that can project 65mm, there isn't much logic in making 65mm movies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Panczenko Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 This is shooting in Alexandria, Virgina, right? Or am I getting it confused with something else. When is it supposed to start shooting? Congrats on shooting the tests! I'd be psyched if I could scrape the gum off a park bench for Mr. Lubezki! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Visiano Posted September 23, 2004 Author Share Posted September 23, 2004 What is it like working with Terrence Malick, even if it only entails tests? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidSloan Posted September 27, 2004 Share Posted September 27, 2004 I second that...tell us about Malick, PLEASE!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignacio Aguilar Posted December 9, 2004 Share Posted December 9, 2004 TEASER TRAILER. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felipe Perez-Burchard Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Looks pretty awsome! So Greg, what kind of tests did you guys do? if you don't mind me asking. -felipe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adam Frisch FSF Posted December 12, 2004 Premium Member Share Posted December 12, 2004 Great looking trailer - can't wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Captain Bluebear Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Hi, can someone tell me why 18 millions for Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet are enough to shoot on 65mm, and Malick can't do a whole film for 30 millions? Both budgets are according to imdb. Btw, GregIrwin can you please tell us a little bit more: Hi all... I shot all of the tests for this movie with Terry Malick and Chivo. Only a limited portion of the picture will be shot with 65mm while the rest is primarily anamorphic. 65mm is too expensive to film an entire picture in. Along with limited exhibition outlets that can project 65mm, there isn't much logic in making 65mm movies. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So are there any news regarding this production? so long, Markus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Brad Grimmett Posted May 23, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted May 23, 2005 Hi, can someone tell me why 18 millions for Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet are enough to shoot on 65mm, and Malick can't do a whole film for 30 millions? Both budgets are according to imdb. Markus <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, they're two very different films. The money isn't just for film stock, there are many other parts of the budget that need to be fed. My assumption would be that The New World had a much smaller film stock budget than Hamlet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Captain Bluebear Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 I just wrote that because GregIrwin wrote that 65mm is too expensive to film an entire picture in. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> How big a factor in costs is it to shoot in 65mm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted May 23, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted May 23, 2005 Personally I don't understand why more big-budget films don't shoot in 65mm. The cameras are actually the same price to rent as a modern 35mm one. 1000' in 5-perf 65mm at 24 fps gets you about 9 minutes instead of 11 minutes as with 4-perf 35mm, so the amount of stock shot would only be 10% to 20% more. The stock itself is about twice as expensive though (it's twice as wide so that makes sense!), so if you were going to buy $50,000 in stock, it would be $100,000 in 65mm (although you may work out a deal with Kodak.) I suspect that the price per foot processing costs would be similar to 35mm, and the telecine costs should be close. Malick tends to shoot a LOT of footage, so if he bought 500,000' of 35mm stock at $500 per 1000' roll, that's $250,000. So if he shot in 65mm and kept to the same footage total, that would be $500,000 for just the stock, but that would be the biggest increase in budget. I guess you'd run into the same problem with shooting a feature in VistaVision (8-perf 35mm) since your footage amounts would double even though it was 35mm stock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Captain Bluebear Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 Thanks for your answer David. After i've read the numbers I wonder, whyat least films like Alexander and Kingdom of Heaven don't use 65mm. It doesn't seem unaffordable. You said that Malick shoots a lot of footage. But I guess that he isn't like Kubrick who wants one take to be as perfect as he has it in mind. At least in Days of Heaven, I've heard he was just finding the story during the shoot. But I can't imagine, that this is possible with such a big film. Although "Thin Red Line" was even bigger, and there he cut several actors and didn't use hours of Voice-Over. So do you know whether he needs so much film because he knows exactly what he wants from a scene or because he doesn't know exactly what he needs for his film? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Wells Posted May 24, 2005 Share Posted May 24, 2005 Along with limited exhibition outlets that can project 65mm, there isn't much logic in making 65mm movies. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes there is, it looks fantastic. Logic is fine for computers, but :D I saw the trailer on DVD (it's on the "Birth" DVD) -- even on DVD it looked very nice -Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolfe Klement Posted October 16, 2005 Share Posted October 16, 2005 The HD trailers are available - some very nice looking shots Apple HD Trailers enjoy thanks Rolfe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Wendell_Greene Posted November 15, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted November 15, 2005 (edited) November 2005 ICG Magazine: Upon A Time In America -Emmanuel Lubezki, ASC and Team Recreate the New World Link Edited November 15, 2005 by Wendell_Greene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted November 15, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted November 15, 2005 November 2005 ICG Magazine: Upon A Time In America -Emmanuel Lubezki, ASC and Team Recreate the New WorldLink It was weird how the article never mentioned that some of the film was shot in 65mm, or how that was cut into the 35mm negative, or it was all done using a DI, etc. -- was all the 65mm stuff cut out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignacio Aguilar Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 Perhaps it's unknown yet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Markus Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 Thanks for the link. I've just read the article and it says that they shot the whole movie between f/16 and f/11. How's that possible with natural light only? And if they really shot some of it in 65mm, wouldn't they need an even greater amount of light to get that stop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignacio Aguilar Posted November 16, 2005 Share Posted November 16, 2005 Since you may easily get an f/22 with a 100 ASA stock in direct sunlight, getting deep stops outdoors with a 500 ASA stock (even if it's rated one or two thirds of a stop slower) shouldn't be a problem even shooting only with natural light. The article doesn't talk about their approach for the night scenes, but the trailer shows some scenes shot at wider apertures (f/2.8-4) with very shallow depth of field, even at dusk. Anyway, if they really went through all the trouble of shooting 65mm I would have expected a 100 ASA film stock to achieve a fine-grain look for the 35mm stuff, as John Toll did on "The Thin Red Line". And if they really shot some of it in 65mm, wouldn't they need an even greater amount of light to get that stop? No, the amount of light needed would be the same, but you would need longer focal lenghts working in 65mm to cover the same angle of view (a 100mm lens in 65mm covers more or less the same angle as a 50mm in 35mm). The longer the lens, it has less depth of field, so to compensate you end up shooting at deeper stops, thus requiring more light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted November 16, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted November 16, 2005 Thanks for the link. I've just read the article and it says that they shot the whole movie between f/16 and f/11. How's that possible with natural light only? And if they really shot some of it in 65mm, wouldn't they need an even greater amount of light to get that stop? Obviously from the trailer, quite a bit was shot at wider f-stops in low light levels. No, if you use 500 ASA film, for example, at 24 fps / 180 degree shutter, let's say, and your meter tells you to shoot at f/4, it doesn't matter if you are shooting in Super-8 or IMAX. The film format does not change the sensitivity of the stock. The only thing would be that you'd get less depth of field as the negative gets larger, because you'd be using longer focal lengths to maintain the same angle of view. So they wouldn't need a greater amount of light with 65mm to get that stop, they'd need greater amount of light to maintain that depth of field by stopping down even further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted November 16, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted November 16, 2005 From reading the article, I get the impression that they didn't shoot 65mm. If they had, they sure would have mentioned it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adam Frisch FSF Posted November 17, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted November 17, 2005 I simply can not wait to see this movie. I think Malick and Lubezki are geniuses - perfect pairing. I heard from my focus puller who shot with Lubezki recently that on the new Alfonso Cuaron film they're doing here, Emmanuel tested a lot of lenses with the coating stripped off. In the end they went with a combo of old lenses and Primos with no coating. They're also shooting the whole film without mattebox to get as much stray light and veiling flares as possible. Can't wait to see that one, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Wendell_Greene Posted November 17, 2005 Premium Member Share Posted November 17, 2005 I simply can not wait to see this movie. I think Malick and Lubezki are geniuses - perfect pairing. I agree. BTW, I 'm also looking forward to the January 2006 issue of American Cinematographer which I expect will go into far more detail than ICG. 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