Training Day: Super 35 or Panavision? (1 Viewer)

[John J Nelson]

Hi,

Could someone confirm whether Training Day was shot in Super 35 or with anamorphic lenses?

IMdB says it's Super 35, but I watched the film last night and elliptical highlights were clearly visible. I thought that these are artifacts introduced by anamorphic lenses?


-- J.

 

[WillG]

I have seen this movie on cable, and the full screen transfer does look like panned and scanned Panavision. Close ups of character's heads seem to almost take up the whole screen which would indicate heavy Pan and Scan as apposed to open matte. Still many parts of Super 35 movies are still heavilly panned and scanned in Full Screen (and not just the visual effect shots) so I suppose it is tough to tell. Also IMDB is often incorrect about the film process. (although widemovies.com lists it as Super 35 as well)

Look at the closing credits and see if it says at the end "Filmed in Panavision" or "Filmed with Panavision Cameras and Lenses" Which means Super 35

But for the record, I have wondered about this myself

 

[Michael Reuben]

Look at the closing credits and see if it says at the end "Filmed in Panavision" or "Filmed with Panavision Cameras and Lenses" Which means Super 35

The closing credits are not a reliable guide on this point. There are many famous examples of mistakes (e.g., Silence of the Lambs says "Filmed in Panavision").

According to Widescreen Review's database, which I've generally found to be more reliable than IMDB, the film was shot with anamorphic lenses.

M.

 

[Juan C]

It looked like Super35 to me.

Is it possible that they did some shots on Super35 and others on anamorphic 35mm?

 

[Michael Reuben]

It looked like Super35 to me.

Define "looked like Super35".

M.

 

[HenrikTull]

It could be shot with both lenses. Swordfish was both Super35 and anamorphic for example.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Swordfish was both Super35 and anamorphic for example.

What is your source for that information?

Of course it's theoretically possible to mix the filming formats, but it isn't very practical. Widescreen Review's database lists Swordfish with "principal photography" done in Panavision. I'm sure some of the effects shots used other formats (e.g., VistaVision), but that's not really what we're talking about here.

M.

 

[Magnus T]

He points it during the commentary.

 

[Tom_Bechet]

OK I know the difference between Super35 and panavision but what the **** does :

elliptical highlights were clearly visible

mean??? Coz I haven't got a clue.
Thanks a lot

 

[Michael Reuben]

He points it during the commentary.

Can you pinpoint a location (scene or timemark)?

EDIT: Never mind, I found it. He doesn't say anything about "Super35"; he just notes that the opening sequence (and, apparently, only the opening sequence) was shot with special spherical lenses to obtain a particular effect. Nothing unusual there. Principal photography was still anamorphic.

M.

 

[John J Nelson]

OK I know the difference between Super35 and panavision but what the **** does "elliptical highlights were clearly visible" mean??? Coz I haven't got a clue

Anamorphic lenses introduce tell-tale distortions or artifacts into the picture:

• Out-of-focus light sources get stretched in the vertical plane, ie. they look like ellipses rather than spheres
• Strong point light sources can produce a horizontal flare that stretches right across the frame (see "Moulin Rouge" for examples of this)

There may be others...

A.

 

[Tom_Bechet]

thank you

 

[Ian Hay]

"elliptical highlights were clearly visible"

It is my understanding that, because no projector can play super 35 film natively, the printed film format of most, if not all, super 35 films is a 2.35 anamorphic image on ordinary 35mm film. That's why nearly all films that are listed as having a Super 35 "cinematographic process" in IMDB also note that the "printed format" is anamorphic.

That would readily explain why you see elliptical highlights in a printed 2.35 film shot in Super 35.

Good reference on Super 35 (I find many others misunderstand the nature of Super 35): http://www.cs.tut.fi/~leopold/Ld/FilmToVideo/

See section 2.4

 

[Damin J Toell]

That would readily explain why you see elliptical highlights in a printed 2.35 film shot in Super 35.

No, it wouldn't. Making an anamorphic print from a film shot with spherical lenses (like when filming using Super35) doesn't cause elliptical lens flares in that print.

DJ

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Now day's Directors/Cinematographers 'add' digital effects to simulate flares.
So, be very careful/weary, of making a distinction of Pana vs. 35, based on "elliptical lens flares" only.

 

[Ian Hay]

No, it wouldn't. Making an anamorphic print from a film shot with spherical lenses (like when filming using Super35) doesn't cause elliptical lens flares in that print.

Thanks for the correction.

(I had originally intended to say, "Wouldn't that readily explain why you see elliptical highlights in a printed 2.35 film shot in Super 35?")

 

[Juan C]

Define "looked like Super35".

I noticed several instances of circular out-of-focus lights in the background, which indicates those shots were done with spherical lenses.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Is it possible that Traning Day was shot hard matte Super 35? I know that The Negotiator was shot this way. It's been awhile since i've watched 'TD', but I don't recall seeing any anamorphic lense flares, I could be mistaken though.