[Jonathan Bowerbank]

David Mullen ASC, on Oct 19 2007, 09:45 AM, said:

Did anyone notice the dot pattern in the out-of-focus lights that suggests that Black ProMist or maybe Classic Softs were being used on the close-ups?

I liked the film so much, I'll probably sneak in and see it again to catch'em

[Felipe Perez-Burchard]

Finally got to see it... wonderful!!
Reminds me of course of Alan Pakula films (and of course that means Gordon Willis, as was the intention).

I'm curious, did anyone feel like the first moments of the film, before the "4 days earlier" caption, it looks like the film is pushed, with a bit more grain and lower contrast but when we return to the same scenes at the end of the film, they retain the higher contrast and less grain of the rest of the film ; I imagine this is intentional; did anyone else feel this, or am I just seeing things?

Thanks.

[Miguel Bunster]

I am shooting a film i s35mm and using a 1/4 BPM though out the whole film. We never go wider than 35mm lens and never shoot over or under a 2.8 in interiors (except one scene) and day exterior all at 5.6 or at most 8 depending on the lens...its a pretty gritty film with a lot of under exposure and high ratios somoe times the fill being 3 under the key and so on and shooting a lot into sources...i havent seen the pattern of the dots but i know what david is speaking about. I tested this and got 35mm printd of the test and looked fine. is a softer look but int he DI we are gona apply a 50% bleach bypass effect which will cancel in some way the BPM effect in the shadows but still kepp the skins softer...
We were shooting a scene where I had mazi brutes shooting at the windows and i didnt have time to move them (last shot of the day) and the lens was getting a direct soft flare from the window and the BMP created this milky effect which will be towened down in the DI when I crash the balcks back but will stil be there around the window. This is more noticible whn there is few bright areas beside the one flaring the lens...didnt like this but was forced into the situation but at the same time is something we are going for....
I like DI when they dont become a "LOOK" and the organic feel of the film is lost.
I will see hwow that wide shot on a 35mm flared with bpm can be handled in the DI. My timer was on set and I explained him what was going on and he said he has dealt with that before and should be able to handle in when crashing the blacks...if nto i would have lost 10 minutes moving the lights.....
Still is better to do all in camera than "fix" in DI but can save a lot fo time and moeny when you have a big cast on set.
My 2 cents.
M

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Felipe Perez-Burchard, on Oct 28 2007, 06:33 AM, said:

I'm curious, did anyone feel like the first moments of the film, before the "4 days earlier" caption, it looks like the film is pushed, with a bit more grain and lower contrast but when we return to the same scenes at the end of the film, they retain the higher contrast and less grain of the rest of the film ; did anyone else feel this, or am I just seeing things?

Usually by the time one gets to the end of the film, one's mind will have filtered out the grain.

[steve hyde]

...really thought this was a well-made film. Great themes. The filmmakers mapped the processes of corporate sheltering brilliantly.

One thing I noticed about the cinematography is that the bokeh was rendered in oval shapes. Is this a bi-product of the scope (anamorphic) lens?

...and yes, I did notice the dot patterns in the out of focus lights. I assumed it was just grain dance. NEvertheless, it doesn't serve the story in any way. It's just a distraction from the story.


Steve

[F Bulgarelli]

What a great film.
Some of the lighting choices were so perfect, very subtle, the photography never screams at you, it fits perfectly.
I think they were using 2 cameras for a lot of the coverage, for instance, the scene in the alley when clooney sees wilkinson's character for the last time. It cuts great.

Francisco

[Michael Althaus]

steve hyde, on Nov 19 2007, 10:28 AM, said:

One thing I noticed about the cinematography is that the bokeh was rendered in oval shapes. Is this a bi-product of the scope (anamorphic) lens?

I saw the film yesterday and also noticed the oval shaped bokeh. Searching the web to find out about the oval bokeh I found this thread :-) Can anybody explain the reason for the "strange" shape? I am pretty sure it has something to do with the anamorphic lens but I do not understand the underlying reason for this effect...

This post has been edited by Michael Althaus: 30 January 2008 - 12:14 PM

[Leo Anthony Vale]

Michael Althaus, on Jan 30 2008, 03:09 PM, said:

I saw the film yesterday and also noticed the oval shaped bokeh. Searching the web to find out about the oval bokeh I found this thread :-) Can anybody explain the reason for the "strange" shape? I am pretty sure it has something to do with the anamorphic lens but I do not understand the underlying reason for this effect...

An anamorphic lens has two focal lengths. The horizontal focal length is shorter than the vertical one.
Thus the horizontal depth of field is greater than the vertical depth of field.
An out of focus image in the horizontal plane is not as out of focus as it is in the vertical plane.

[David Mullen ASC]

It's partly also the result of fixing the "CinemaScope mumps" problem that earlier anamorphic lenses had. As you focused close to the lens, the amount of squeezing got decreased slightly, thus when the image got the standard 2X unsqueezing during projection, those shots looked "fat" (faces shot close to the lens.) Panavision solved the problem and kept the point of focus at a constant 2X squeeze, but a side effect was now the out of focus areas got more than a 2X squeeze and thus look "skinny" when projected with a constant 2X unsqueeze.

John Hora explains this better in an article on the history of anamorphic in the ASC Manual.

[Michael Althaus]

thanx for the replies. Just found out that I read the article some time ago, I have to re-read it....

[Leo Anthony Vale]

David Mullen ASC, on Jan 31 2008, 07:15 PM, said:

Panavision solved the problem and kept the point of focus at a constant 2X squeeze, but a side effect was now the out of focus areas got more than a 2X squeeze and thus look "skinny" when projected with a constant 2X unsqueeze.

But one still sees those ovals in lenses which use the CinemaScope type focusing.
The Soviet square fronts in <<Andrei Rublev>> and in Technirama. The squeeze is from cylinder mirrors on the prisms. The allow for a "more compact" system than one using just cylinder lenses. & they are focused by changing the distance between the mirrors, just as the CinemaScope type systems move the cylinder lenses focusing

[Tom Lowe]

I saw a 1080p Bluray copy of this yesterday and absolutely loved it. Aside from a tiny number of soft-focus shots I thought the photography was basically perfect. Almost every shot was perfect, IMO.

I also liked the story and the acting a lot. Only one word can sum up the ending: OWNED!

[Christopher Arata]

Tom Lowe, on Feb 17 2008, 09:09 PM, said:

Aside from a tiny number of soft-focus shots I thought the photography was basically perfect. Almost every shot was perfect, IMO.

I also liked the story and the acting a lot. Only one word can sum up the ending: OWNED!

I have to agree with this. I just finished watching this movie again for my 5th or 6th time and it is great. It is about as perfect as it gets in my book. Robert Elswit did an amazing job here. His Cinematography serves the story perfectly!! Great Movie!

[Ira Ratner]

I can't believe this thread was resurrected, but since it's been showing on HBO non-stop, makes sense.

I haven't read all of the posts here, but I just watched it again last night:

It's amazing how the very final scene where he's in the cab, that lasts forever, is so damn RIVETING, and he doesn't say a freaking word.

Is that a testament to him as an actor? (This scene alone, mind you.) Or just that filming technique?

Like, could any competent actor doing 50 takes of that same scene, ESPECIALLY with the miracles of editing nowadays where you wouldn't even know there was an edit, accomplish the same thing?

The entire film was spectacular to me, not even understanding the nuances you guys are talking about, but that last innocuous scene in the cab:

Wow.

This post has been edited by Ira Ratner: 04 October 2008 - 07:21 AM

[Keneu Luca]

Excellent directors commentary on this film too. Director Gilroy and his brother, the editor, maintain a casual sense of humor in their talks.
Not one moment of the commentary is boring or arrogant or pretentious.

And one thing that I like - Tony Gilroy does in fact have some regrets about choices made in the film. There are only a few, like maybe 3 - but it is refreshing. Many directors bullshit their commentary, saying they regret nothing. I am always suspicious of such claims.

[Steve Phipps]

Tom Lowe, on Feb 17 2008, 09:09 PM, said:

I also liked the story and the acting a lot.

The screenplay is excellent, and I actually liked it better than the film. Highly recommended if you like reading screenplays.