HaHA! Someone in Hollywood agrees with me!

Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Jeff Kleist, Mar 7, 2002.

  1. Jeff Kleist

    Jeff Kleist Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 1999
    Messages:
    11,267
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    From an interview with the FX director for Superman 4 from Superman Cinema-http://www.deceptions.net/superman/superman4/s4_production/special_effects/ellenshaw_interview2/page1.htm
    Q3. Did you consider using yellow screen sodium vapour traveling matte work [from your Disney roots] to remove the problem of matting superman's blue tights?
    A. Absolutely it was considered. Two big limitations prevented us:
    Reason #1: The widest lens available for the sodium camera is a 40mm, which is pretty long actually. This is because wider focal length lenses don't fit. They hit the prism that is placed right behind the lens mount.
    Reason #2: There were no anamorphic lenses for the sodium camera, so it meant we would have to shoot Super35, which yields a pathetically small negative area for 2.40:1 [the aspect ratio for all the SUPERMAN movies]. Especially considering you have to dupe the shots because they are opticals.
     
  2. Peter Apruzzese

    Peter Apruzzese Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 1999
    Messages:
    3,575
    Likes Received:
    1,238
    Trophy Points:
    4,110
    Real Name:
    Peter Apruzzese
    Considering how pathetically bad all the effects in Superman IV are, they would have been better off doing ANYTHING other than what was done.
     
  3. Jeff Kleist

    Jeff Kleist Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 1999
    Messages:
    11,267
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Peter, read the interview to find out why they sucked so hard.
     
  4. Peter Apruzzese

    Peter Apruzzese Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 1999
    Messages:
    3,575
    Likes Received:
    1,238
    Trophy Points:
    4,110
    Real Name:
    Peter Apruzzese
    Thanks for the link! The interviewer was being very kind when he used the word "inconsistent" as regards to the effects. Interesting interview - I love the description of the sneak preview screening. [​IMG]
     
  5. Ken_McAlinden

    Ken_McAlinden Producer
    Reviewer

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2001
    Messages:
    6,191
    Likes Received:
    80
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Location:
    Livonia, MI USA
    Real Name:
    Kenneth McAlinden
    Between improvements in film stocks and advances in digital compositing, the problems he is talking about have been significantly reduced in recent years.

    Regards,
     
  6. Adam Lenhardt

    Adam Lenhardt Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2001
    Messages:
    18,426
    Likes Received:
    2,853
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Location:
    Albany, NY
    Ken: Elliminated, even. If I had a significantly better processing power and a storage server, I could produce better wire removal and compositing work. Composite the foreground action with the background plates in After Effects or similiar, Convert the scenes into photoshop filmstrips, edit out the wires, do basic color correction, convert back to video footage, edit in Premiere and print out to film. Although I doubt you could reach 35mm quality with anything off-the-shelf or find the time to do an entire full-length feature this way. But it's the kind of thing ILM does in their sleep now...
     
  7. Artur Meinild

    Artur Meinild Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    1,294
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Congratulations... And so what? 99% of all people still disagree with you, and super-35 still have advantages over anamorphic, with improved depth of field as maybe the most prominent. Sorry, I don't get the point... [​IMG]
     
  8. Jeff Kleist

    Jeff Kleist Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 1999
    Messages:
    11,267
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Damnit, I'm having my moment of triumph here, and you people still have to go and ruin it.

    My official stance remains:

    If you want to shoot Super35, shoot 1.85:1 so you don't needlessly waste your negative and reduce theatrical quality
     
  9. Patrick McCart

    Patrick McCart Lead Actor

    Joined:
    May 16, 2001
    Messages:
    7,591
    Likes Received:
    241
    Trophy Points:
    9,110
    Location:
    Georgia (the state)
    Real Name:
    Patrick McCart
    Super-35 is best when the film needs a gritty look to it (T-2, Fight Club, The Abyss, The Matrix) or if there is a ton of CG work to be put in.
    Also, S-35 looks better when used with digital color grading (O Brother Where Art Thou, LOTR).
    It also depends on film stocks (Super-35 can look like anamorphic with today's technology), too.
    The main reason why Super-35 is used now is because you can do deep focus and a lot of things Panavision can't...
    Actually, instead of Super-35, 65mm or Vistavision should be used. If a filmmaker just conserve film by half, you get twice the picture with 70mm. [​IMG]
    I think The Fellowship of the Ring would have looked great in 70mm...
     
  10. Jeff Kleist

    Jeff Kleist Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 1999
    Messages:
    11,267
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There you go, maybe I should change my motto to
    If you insist on not shooting anamorphic, shoot 65mm instead [​IMG]
     
  11. Scott H

    Scott H Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2000
    Messages:
    693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  12. Scott H

    Scott H Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2000
    Messages:
    693
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  13. TheoGB

    TheoGB Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Messages:
    1,744
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  14. Jeff Kleist

    Jeff Kleist Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 1999
    Messages:
    11,267
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Theo
    My specific complaint is using it to shoot 2.35:1 films, not 1.85:1 and below [​IMG]
     
  15. TheoGB

    TheoGB Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2001
    Messages:
    1,744
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Okay. It's just that in the midst of our discussions as to whether or not Buffy is widescreen you've pointed out that 'this is the reason I hate Super35', referring to it's multiple aspect ratios and so forth. If you reduced it now to an objection to 2.35:1 that's possibly more sane. Given the grain I saw in the cinema on Harry Potter I can understand your point at times.[​IMG]
     
  16. Jeff Kleist

    Jeff Kleist Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 1999
    Messages:
    11,267
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Harry Potter is my poster child for the cause [​IMG]
     

Share This Page