Jump to content



Photo

Training Day: Super 35 or Panavision?


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 of 18 John J Nelson

John J Nelson

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 73 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 20 2001

Posted February 16 2003 - 10:34 PM

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.
These are the new leads. These are the Glengarry leads. And to you they're gold, and you don't get them. Why? Because to give them to you is just throwing them away. They're for closers.

#2 of 18 WillG

WillG

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 5,213 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 30 2003

Posted February 17 2003 - 02:17 AM

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
STOP HIM! He's supposed to die!

#3 of 18 Michael Reuben

Michael Reuben

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 21,769 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 12 1998

Posted February 17 2003 - 02:51 AM

Quote:
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.
COMPLETE list of my disc reviews.       HTF Rules / 200920102011 Film Lists

#4 of 18 Juan C

Juan C

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 450 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 22 2003

Posted February 17 2003 - 03:39 AM

It looked like Super35 to me.

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

#5 of 18 Michael Reuben

Michael Reuben

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 21,769 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 12 1998

Posted February 17 2003 - 03:56 AM

Quote:
It looked like Super35 to me.
Define "looked like Super35".

M.
COMPLETE list of my disc reviews.       HTF Rules / 200920102011 Film Lists

#6 of 18 HenrikTull

HenrikTull

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 470 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 06 2000

Posted February 17 2003 - 04:44 AM

It could be shot with both lenses. Swordfish was both Super35 and anamorphic for example.
A Little Slice of Heaven

#7 of 18 Michael Reuben

Michael Reuben

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 21,769 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 12 1998

Posted February 17 2003 - 04:55 AM

Quote:
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.
COMPLETE list of my disc reviews.       HTF Rules / 200920102011 Film Lists

#8 of 18 Magnus T

Magnus T

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 26 2003

Posted February 17 2003 - 04:56 AM

He points it during the commentary.
There is no spoon...
but there is a fork with a cork!

#9 of 18 Tom_Bechet

Tom_Bechet

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 283 posts
  • Join Date: May 20 2002

Posted February 17 2003 - 05:49 AM

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

Quote:
elliptical highlights were clearly visible

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


Maybe this world is another planet's hell
Aldous Huxley

#10 of 18 Michael Reuben

Michael Reuben

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 21,769 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 12 1998

Posted February 17 2003 - 05:56 AM

Quote:
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.
COMPLETE list of my disc reviews.       HTF Rules / 200920102011 Film Lists

#11 of 18 John J Nelson

John J Nelson

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 73 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 20 2001

Posted February 17 2003 - 06:54 AM

Quote:
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.
These are the new leads. These are the Glengarry leads. And to you they're gold, and you don't get them. Why? Because to give them to you is just throwing them away. They're for closers.

#12 of 18 Tom_Bechet

Tom_Bechet

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 283 posts
  • Join Date: May 20 2002

Posted February 17 2003 - 06:58 AM

thank youPosted Image


Maybe this world is another planet's hell
Aldous Huxley

#13 of 18 Ian Hay

Ian Hay

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 07 2002

Posted February 17 2003 - 07:31 AM

Quote:
"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...Ld/FilmToVideo/

See section 2.4

#14 of 18 Damin J Toell

Damin J Toell

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 3,761 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 07 2001

Posted February 17 2003 - 08:17 AM

Quote:
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

#15 of 18 Ed St. Clair

Ed St. Clair

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 3,320 posts
  • Join Date: May 07 2001

Posted February 17 2003 - 11:32 AM

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.
Movies are: "The Greatest Artform".
HD should be for EVERYONE!

#16 of 18 Ian Hay

Ian Hay

    Member

  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 07 2002

Posted February 17 2003 - 12:07 PM

Quote:
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?")

#17 of 18 Juan C

Juan C

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 450 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 22 2003

Posted February 17 2003 - 07:23 PM

Quote:
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.

#18 of 18 Inspector Hammer!

Inspector Hammer!

    Advanced Member

  • PipPipPip
  • 11,067 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 15 1999
  • Real Name:John Williamson
  • LocationWilmington, Delaware

Posted February 17 2003 - 09:45 PM

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.
"That's Jack Bauer!!!!!! He's coming for me!!!!!" - Charles Logan


Back to Archived Threads 2001-2004


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Forum Nav Content I Follow