Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests to win things like this Logitech Harmony Ultimate Remote and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

- - - - -

Is anyone still shooting films in large negative formats


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
26 replies to this topic

#1 of 27 Guest_Chris*Liberti_*

Guest_Chris*Liberti_*
  • Join Date: --

Posted March 25 2003 - 03:23 PM

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?

#2 of 27 Peter Kline

Peter Kline

    Screenwriter

  • 2,409 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 09 1999

Posted March 25 2003 - 03:38 PM

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?

#3 of 27 ThomasC

ThomasC

    Lead Actor

  • 6,526 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 15 2001

Posted March 25 2003 - 04:11 PM

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.

#4 of 27 Aaron Garman

Aaron Garman

    Second Unit

  • 382 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 23 2001

Posted March 26 2003 - 09:22 AM

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
"It's been my lifelong ambition to be a movie usher, and I have failed, as far as I am concerned" - Bob Dylan

#5 of 27 Jason Seaver

Jason Seaver

    Lead Actor

  • 9,306 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 31 1969

Posted March 26 2003 - 10:43 AM

Quote:
What effect does shooting in large formats have on CGI?
In short: More pixels.
Jay's Movie Blog - A movie-viewing diary.
Transplanted Life: Sci-fi soap opera about a man placed in a new body, updated two or three times a week.
Trading Post Inn - Another gender-bending soap, with different collaborators writing different points of view.

"What? Since when was this an energy...

#6 of 27 Chad R

Chad R

    Screenwriter

  • 2,174 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 14 1999
  • Real Name:Chad Rouch

Posted March 27 2003 - 05:28 AM

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.

#7 of 27 Guy Martin

Guy Martin

    Second Unit

  • 350 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 29 1998

Posted March 27 2003 - 09:47 AM

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

#8 of 27 Scott McGillivray

Scott McGillivray

    Supporting Actor

  • 852 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 20 1999

Posted March 17 2009 - 08:43 AM

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!
Scott A. McGillivray
Vancouver, B.C.

Struggling Actor and Movie Nut!
(Check out my profile on IMDB!)http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1425496/

#9 of 27 Richard--W

Richard--W

    Producer

  • 3,527 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 20 2004

Posted March 17 2009 - 09:49 AM

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 ...

#10 of 27 Brian Borst

Brian Borst

    Screenwriter

  • 1,137 posts
  • Join Date: May 15 2008

Posted March 17 2009 - 10:06 AM

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.
Never go out with anyone who thinks Fellini is a type of cheese

My Blu-Ray/DVD Collection

#11 of 27 David Norman

David Norman

    Screenwriter

  • 1,968 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 12 2001
  • LocationCharlotte, NC

Posted March 17 2009 - 11:11 AM

IT LIVES! 6 years in a coma and the thread returns from the dead -- Inconceivable!
 

 


#12 of 27 Mr. Film

Mr. Film

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 152 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 08 2009

Posted March 17 2009 - 11:14 AM

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.
"As soon as television became the only secondary way in which films were watched, films had to adhere to a pretty linear system, whereby you can drift off for ten minutes and go and answer the phone and not really lose your place."
-Christopher Nolan

#13 of 27 Brian Borst

Brian Borst

    Screenwriter

  • 1,137 posts
  • Join Date: May 15 2008

Posted March 18 2009 - 06:19 AM

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.
Never go out with anyone who thinks Fellini is a type of cheese

My Blu-Ray/DVD Collection

#14 of 27 MatthewA

MatthewA

    Producer

  • 6,002 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 19 2000
  • Real Name:Matthew
  • LocationSalinas, CA

Posted March 18 2009 - 09:55 AM

Does anyone even shoot in real widescreen anymore (scope as opposed to the faux widescreen of "Super" 35)?

Enough is enough, Disney. We DEMAND the release Song of the South on Blu-ray.

 

My DVD/BD List at DVD Aficionado


#15 of 27 Josh Steinberg

Josh Steinberg

    Screenwriter

  • 2,171 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 10 2003
  • Real Name:Josh Steinberg

Posted March 19 2009 - 04:50 AM

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.

#16 of 27 Brian Borst

Brian Borst

    Screenwriter

  • 1,137 posts
  • Join Date: May 15 2008

Posted March 19 2009 - 06:33 AM

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.
Never go out with anyone who thinks Fellini is a type of cheese

My Blu-Ray/DVD Collection

#17 of 27 Josh Steinberg

Josh Steinberg

    Screenwriter

  • 2,171 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 10 2003
  • Real Name:Josh Steinberg

Posted March 19 2009 - 07:31 AM

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 Posted Image

#18 of 27 Brian Borst

Brian Borst

    Screenwriter

  • 1,137 posts
  • Join Date: May 15 2008

Posted March 19 2009 - 08:43 AM

Me too, but we're a small minority Posted Image. 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.
Never go out with anyone who thinks Fellini is a type of cheese

My Blu-Ray/DVD Collection

#19 of 27 Yee-Ming

Yee-Ming

    Producer

  • 4,329 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 04 2002
  • Real Name:Yee Ming Lim

Posted March 19 2009 - 03:55 PM

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.

#20 of 27 Brian Borst

Brian Borst

    Screenwriter

  • 1,137 posts
  • Join Date: May 15 2008

Posted March 19 2009 - 11:21 PM

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).
Never go out with anyone who thinks Fellini is a type of cheese

My Blu-Ray/DVD Collection


Back to Movies (Theatrical)



Forum Nav Content I Follow