Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › Is anyone still shooting films in large negative formats
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is anyone still shooting films in large negative formats

post #1 of 27
3/25/03 at 8:23pm
Thread Starter 
I am trrying to find out if anyone is still shooting films in large negative formats like 65 or 70mm? (not including IMAX). If so what films have been shot in these formats recently?
Reply
post #2 of 27
3/25/03 at 8:38pm
I believe the last major film to be photographed in 70mm was "Hamlet" starring and directed by Kenneth Branagh in 1996. Some 70mm productions are done for theme parks but I don't know if recently. By the way, what ever happened to Mr. Branagh?
Reply
post #3 of 27
3/25/03 at 9:11pm
Quote:
By the way, what ever happened to Mr. Branagh?
He was in two movies last year, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets as Gilderoy Lockhart and Rabbit-Proof Fence. He was also the leading man in a TV movie that was shown on A&E called Shackleton.
Reply
post #4 of 27
3/26/03 at 2:22pm
Hello all. What effect does shooting in large formats have on CGI? We've already discussed how anamorphics effect it, but what about standard large formats? I yearn to actually see 70mm films, but like people have stated, they are simply not made anymore. Maybe Indy IV could be in 70mm...oh my!

AJG
Reply
post #5 of 27
3/26/03 at 3:43pm
Quote:
What effect does shooting in large formats have on CGI?
In short: More pixels.
Reply
post #6 of 27
3/27/03 at 10:28am
I'm not positive but I believe that all of the plates for 'contact' were shot 65mm to eliminate the anamorphic problems in the CGI.
Reply
post #7 of 27
3/27/03 at 2:47pm
As chad points out, its not uncommon for effects plates to be shot in large formats like VistaVision since it is much easier to do effects in a "flat" format (no need to worry about correcting for the distortions caused by anamorphic lenses). Although in recent years this has been supplanted somewhat by the use of Super35 for FX-heavy films. Presently I'm working at a company that's producing a major release where the bulk of filming is in anamorphic, but the FX sequences are being done in Super35 instead of VistaVision.

As for doing CGI at 70mm, the bottom line is it is simply a matter of having to render everything at a much higher resolution (approx 4x that of 35mm) with the resultant increases in render time and storage space. There are a few CGI effects in Hamlet (most notably the shot of Fortinbras' army just before the intermission) so obviously CGI is possibly at 70mm, it just costs more and takes more time (as almost everything does when shooting 70mm).
- Guy
Reply
post #8 of 27
3/17/09 at 1:43pm

Re: Is anyone still shooting films in large negative formats

Here is a pretty good list detailing movies that were shot in 70mm or at least used it in some aspect of filming.

List of 70 mm films - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pretty cool information!
Reply
post #9 of 27
3/17/09 at 2:49pm

Re: Is anyone still shooting films in large negative formats

I'm one of those eccentrics who think that digital capture and 35mm film should be retired. All movies, without exception should be shot in stereoscopic 70mm with a horizontal pull.

The image quality of digital capture withers in comparison. No matter how fast digital progresses, it will never equal 70mm.

Maybe the cost-prohibitive price of 70mm would come down to something reasonable and affordable if the entire industry -- including exhibitors -- retooled for stereoscopic 70mm.

One can dream ...
Reply
post #10 of 27
3/17/09 at 3:06pm

Re: Is anyone still shooting films in large negative formats

Martin Scorsese is using 65mm cameras for his new film 'Shutter Island' apparently. It's a thriller that's set in the fifties, so it fits.
I don't know if it's the entire film, or just selected shots. Considering the costs, it's probably the latter. Although it would be interesting to see another film entirely in 70mm, and not just a blow-up.
And I still have to watch Baraka on Blu. Every review states it's amazing, but I haven't come around to watch it. Will do it soon.
Reply
post #11 of 27
3/17/09 at 4:11pm

Re: Is anyone still shooting films in large negative formats

IT LIVES! 6 years in a coma and the thread returns from the dead -- Inconceivable!
Reply
post #12 of 27
3/17/09 at 4:14pm

Re: Is anyone still shooting films in large negative formats

I don't really care whether it's 70mm or not. 35mm is fine, and digital is progressing. Plus, very few theaters have 70mm projectors, besides Imax which is 65mm.
Reply
post #13 of 27
3/18/09 at 11:19am

Re: Is anyone still shooting films in large negative formats

I don't think digital filmmaking comes even close to 70mm film, and some think it doesn't even hold up to regular 35mm. I think it's good that some filmmakers want to do something different than the current trend of digital filmmaking, like Christopher Nolan and Michael Bay. I hope this will continue.
Reply
post #14 of 27
3/18/09 at 2:55pm

Re: Is anyone still shooting films in large negative formats

Does anyone even shoot in real widescreen anymore (scope as opposed to the faux widescreen of "Super" 35)?
Reply
post #15 of 27
3/19/09 at 9:50am

Re: Is anyone still shooting films in large negative formats

Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewA
Does anyone even shoot in real widescreen anymore (scope as opposed to the faux widescreen of "Super" 35)?

Yes. The non-IMAX portions of "The Dark Knight", to name one.

True anamorphic filmmaking seems to be less popular these days, as the special effects wizards have an easier time doing their work on Super35 (a format to which I agree, there is nothing super about it).

But anamorphic/scope films are still being made. A good resource to look at is the website for the ASC (American Society of Cinematographers). Their website has most of the content from the magazine, it would seem, and their features on each film list not only the format the film was shot in, but also which lenses were used, what film stock it was shot on, what post-production processes and facilities were used, what film stock the release prints were made on, and what lab did the work.
Reply
post #16 of 27
3/19/09 at 11:33am

Re: Is anyone still shooting films in large negative formats

It's being used less and less unfortunately. Super35 is easier to light and costs less, so those are the main motivations behind it.
I was actually surprised while watching Indy 4 that it was shot anamorphically, I never though Kaminski would do that, he always shoots in Super35.
Christopher Nolan and Michael Bay are the only two directors I can think of, who still frequently film in anamorphic.
And though I like the look of an anamorphic film more, David Fincher's Super35 films still look amazing, I think.
Reply
post #17 of 27
3/19/09 at 12:31pm

Re: Is anyone still shooting films in large negative formats

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Borst
I was actually surprised while watching Indy 4 that it was shot anamorphically, I never though Kaminski would do that, he always shoots in Super35.

I was hoping that Indy 4 would be shot anamorphically before it came out, and was pleased to find out that was the case. Kaminski said that he studied Doug Slocombe's photography on the other three films and wanted to keep this one in line with the others, so I wouldn't be surprised if that was reason -- or even if Spielberg insisted on anamorphic photography for that reason. And this is totally off-topic, but I really enjoyed Indy 4
Reply
post #18 of 27
3/19/09 at 1:43pm

Re: Is anyone still shooting films in large negative formats

Me too, but we're a small minority . I think it fits well with the other Indy sequels. Good films, but nowhere near the quality of Raiders.
But we're going slightly off-topic here.
Reply
post #19 of 27
3/19/09 at 8:55pm

Re: Is anyone still shooting films in large negative formats

I may be off here, but if I understand correctly, in shooting anamorphic or Super 35, both use the same (OK, similar) 35mm film stock, but anamorphic uses a special lens to squeeze a wider shot onto the relatively square-ish 4:3negative, whilst Super 35 in effect shoots 4:3 directly, but the DP composes the shot and 'protects' for whatever widescreen ratio (usually 2.35:1 or 1.85:1) that the director wants? Hence Super 35 is practically "tilt-and-scan" in that much less of the negative is used for usuable information, thereby reducing PQ?

65mm and 70mm I understand, larger negative, captures more detail, ergo better PQ.

Sorry, I've never been very much into the technical background of shooting films, but that's my understanding so far. Any corrections will be gratefully received.
Reply
post #20 of 27
3/20/09 at 4:21am

Re: Is anyone still shooting films in large negative formats

You've got it right, basically. They use the same film stock, but Super35 films don't use the optical soundtrack on the right, so that space is used for the picture. The release prints are anamorphic.
65 and 70 mm are the same. The first one is used while shooting, and the second is used when showing a print (again, the optical soundtrack adds the 5 mm).
Reply
post #21 of 27
3/20/09 at 2:53pm

Re: Is anyone still shooting films in large negative formats

The best films I have seen in real scope in the last 15 years have been directed by Paul Thomas Anderson and photographed by Robert Elswit. The day his collaboration with DP Robert Elswit ends is the day I mourn with agony. Elswit has done his fair share of Super 35 work, but his essential works (Boogie Nights, Magnolia, Punch-Drunk Love, and There Will Be Blood) are all in scope and are sights to behold, especially on a big theater screen. Man, does Elswit know how to frame a perfect shot, as does PT Anderson writing and directing these stories for him to film.

NOTE: The only reason I didn't mention Hard Eight is because I'm not sure if the film was shot in scope or in Super 35.
Reply
post #22 of 27
3/21/09 at 10:09am

Re: Is anyone still shooting films in large negative formats

Hard Eight was shot in Super 35. It looks really good, though not as good as the other collaborations with Paul Thomas Anderson. I'm waiting for all these films (apart from There Will Be Blood, of course) to come out on Blu-Ray. They should look amazing.
Reply
post #23 of 27
4/22/09 at 9:41pm

Re: Is anyone still shooting films in large negative formats

In regards to Super 35, it's getting better but I prefer Panavision. Gone are the days when we saw Filme In Panavision at the end of a film (it's still there sometimes, sometimes they have it on Super 35 films using Panavision cameras. They never adverstise Super 35 for some reason except in Hard Eight, Age Of Innocence, and Casino), why don't they bring back Techniscope. It was not that bad, and with a DI and can look better than it did than. And you are getting on the screen what the OCN had. The 4 perf Animorphic print is taken from the 2 perf frame. Bring back Techniscope instead of Super 35.
Reply
post #24 of 27
4/23/09 at 12:49am

Re: Is anyone still shooting films in large negative formats

The aperture is bigger on Super35 than on Techniscope, so it would be a step back, I think. Plus Super35 has been so common now, I doubt it that they would suddenly stop using it and go for another format. And if they did, I'd rather they use anamorphic or 70mm film . That's not happening, I know.
Reply
post #25 of 27
5/24/09 at 11:55am

Re: Is anyone still shooting films in large negative formats

Have not posted here since April. I am seeing more animorphic films coming back. Rodrigo Prearto (I know I spelled his name wrong), shot State Of Play in Panavision. Used animorphic for most of the film and also used digital Panavision Genisis (the best of the digital cams next to Viper Stream). The new Star Trek is animorphic, Michael Bay of course with the new Transformers coming out. John Bailey gave an interview in American Cinematographer where he said he lit a fire under Panavision's a@$ because he was upset they got in bed with Lucas to Panavise the Cinealta (Sony HDCAM), and they ignored there own lenses, and now they have and are devloping better animorphic lenses.

Now can Hi Def digital have an animorphic squeeze, and be presented in true wide screen?. I know the sony cameras and the Panavision digital cameras only have super 35 capibilities. But I heard Cannon makes an Animorphic adapter for the Cinealta (don't know if that's the same as a lens), and the Viper Stream has a 2.35 cinemascope mode (don't know if that's a squeeze or just cropping to a 2.35 or 2.40 image)
Reply
post #26 of 27
5/25/09 at 7:28pm

Re: Is anyone still shooting films in large negative formats

First lets answer this guy's question... Yeah, Ron Fricke still does, "Samsara" (his followup to Baraka) is in Super Panavision 70. Moving on....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Husar
Now can Hi Def digital have an animorphic squeeze, and be presented in true wide screen?
Apparantly the Red One camera does. Soderbergh shot "Girlfriend Experience" with it and all the out of focus shots are ovular instead of spherical.
Reply
post #27 of 27
5/25/09 at 10:20pm

Re: Is anyone still shooting films in large negative formats

Spherical cinematography is beautiful to me.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movies (Theatrical)
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › Is anyone still shooting films in large negative formats