Jump to content


Photo

jeepers creepers and man on fire


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 freddie bonfanti

freddie bonfanti
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 315 posts
  • Gaffer
  • LONDON

Posted 15 December 2005 - 09:25 PM

hi

i have recently seen jepers creepers and man on fire and i loved the way they both looked. anyone knows what kind of film stock has been used for both films? i may say something silly but could it be reversal?

thanks

freddy bonfanti
  • 0

#2 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11944 posts
  • Other

Posted 15 December 2005 - 11:19 PM

Hi,

"Man on Fire" was all kinds of strange things, this being a Tony Scott film. I thought it was fantastic, but I like very stylised stuff. There's reversal, including at least some cross processing, 16mm, and various special camera techniques. Not sure if it was a DI.

See also "Domino"

Phil
  • 0

#3 Brad Grimmett

Brad Grimmett
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2660 posts
  • Steadicam Operator
  • Los Angeles

Posted 15 December 2005 - 11:37 PM

Jeepers Creepers was shot on negative. Can't recall which stock, but it was negative. Incidentally, the first time I ever saw an Arc light was on Jeepers Creepers. It's very strange to see a 10K with smoke barrelling out of the top and no one doing anything about it.
  • 0

#4 Mike Williamson

Mike Williamson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 534 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 16 December 2005 - 12:50 AM

Check the archives, there have been a few different postings on "Man On Fire", you could also search using the name of the DP Paul Cameron.

I haven't seen "Jeepers", but cross-processed reversal was one important look (of several) in "Man On Fire". As Phil notes, that look took over "Domino", which I liked a lot as well.
  • 0

#5 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 16 December 2005 - 01:55 AM

The AC article on "Jeepers Creepers" (Sept. 2001) mentions that it was shot on "EXR 500T (5298) and EXR 50D (5248)" -- which is a mistake because EXR 50D is 5245; 5248 is EXR 100T. So I don't know which was used for the day shots but the bulk of the movie was 5298.
  • 0

#6 freddie bonfanti

freddie bonfanti
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 315 posts
  • Gaffer
  • LONDON

Posted 16 December 2005 - 06:52 AM

jeez, lads!

that was really helpful. thank you all for the replies

freddy bonfanti

uk
  • 0

#7 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11944 posts
  • Other

Posted 16 December 2005 - 03:23 PM

Hi,

My thought was that this could probably be done fairly cheaply, given that the only real expense is the increased cost of reversal stock. I'm assuming hand-crankable cameras aren't incredibly expensive for some reason?

Phil
  • 0

#8 Mike Williamson

Mike Williamson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 534 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 16 December 2005 - 04:47 PM

It's not what I'd call a "cheap look", but it depends what scale you're talking about. The cost of stock is about double what color neg costs, plus the additional charge for cross-processing. Beyond that, the only color reversal stock available right now is 100D, so that's going to require a big HMI package if you're doing interiors or nights. Not sure what it costs to rent the cameras, probably nothing outrageous though. The main costs are probably going to be lights and stock.

I've never shot with cross-processed reversal but I'm hoping to get the chance at some point. Maybe David or someone who's shot some of it could comment on how it affected the production in terms of costs? I'm curious if the additional cost is a big deal on a low-budget feature or commercial, or if I'm exaggerating the expense of it.
  • 0

#9 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11944 posts
  • Other

Posted 16 December 2005 - 05:53 PM

Hi,

> additional charge for cross-processing

Huh? They charge for "treat this completely normally?"

Phil
  • 0

#10 Travis Cline

Travis Cline
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 143 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 16 December 2005 - 06:07 PM

I've shot quite a bit of crossed process, not nearly as much as Man on Fire or Domino. I've only shot the one stock Kodak offers right now the 5285(I think that's right) and some Fuji. It does require a bit of light as it is 100D, so plan on a lot of lights or exterior shooting, but it is possible to do, especially considering under-exposure is not a really bad thing for the reversal stock. I've always been happy with the results although a bit unpredictable without some experimentation. Also, there is another additional cost if you are going to print. Even though it does become a negative when cross-processed it has to go through another process(I believe to strip a coating of some sort off) before it can be run through the printers. Anyways. that's what I know.

Travis
  • 0

#11 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 16 December 2005 - 08:40 PM

I'm not sure if there is any significant charge for cross-processing, since, as Phil suggests, you're just asking the lab to treat it in the normal ECN2 bath. Maybe they do. It's more expensive if you DIDN'T cross-process it and used an E6 development.

The problem is just the cost of the stock itself which is about double that of normal color neg. Plus the results are a little unpredictable. And the stock is slow and daylight-balanced (Ektachrome 100D 5285).

Edited by David Mullen, 16 December 2005 - 08:40 PM.

  • 0

#12 Mike Williamson

Mike Williamson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 534 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 December 2005 - 05:00 AM

I think I remember the charge for cross-processing being on par with the extra charge for pushing, maybe seven cents a foot or so depending on where you go, still cheaper than E6 processing as David points out. The problem with it is that it screws up the baths a bit, so they probably have to run it separately, thus a small extra charge.
  • 0

#13 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 17 December 2005 - 05:44 AM

I'm assuming hand-crankable cameras aren't incredibly expensive for some reason?

Arri have a handcrank wheel for their 435, which just needs to get plugged into the electronics of the camera and you can spin away happily.
  • 0

#14 Travis Cline

Travis Cline
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 143 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 19 December 2005 - 05:37 PM

Sorry for the tardy reply, I'm in russia right now and don't always have access to internet. I'm not sure exactly the charge for the cross-processing, but I know that aside from the slight additional charge to develop the film they had another charge that was fairly significant for the print. I just remember the producers getting in a twist over it when Deluxe charged us something extra to put it to print, but I don't know the details, I'll try and find out. Sorry for half information. But, as everyone has said the additional charge for simply developing the film is not significant.

Travis
  • 0

#15 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 19 December 2005 - 06:12 PM

Sorry for the tardy reply, I'm in russia right now and don't always have access to internet. I'm not sure exactly the charge for the cross-processing, but I know that aside from the slight additional charge to develop the film they had another charge that was fairly significant for the print. I just remember the producers getting in a twist over it when Deluxe charged us something extra to put it to print, but I don't know the details, I'll try and find out. Sorry for half information. But, as everyone has said the additional charge for simply developing the film is not significant.

Travis

---It's probably a charge for adding a nonstandard filter pack in the printer to compensate for the lack of orange masking.
some labs do the same for printing B/W neg on color stock.

---LV
  • 0

#16 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 19 December 2005 - 07:46 PM

Well, if you cut cross-processed material into a conformed negative, it really needs to be on its own B or C-roll due to the extreme change in printer lights needed to handle it, and there is an additional charge the more printing rolls you have.
  • 0

#17 Ignacio Aguilar

Ignacio Aguilar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 398 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Madrid, Spain

Posted 19 December 2005 - 09:02 PM

The AC article on "Jeepers Creepers" (Sept. 2001) mentions that it was shot on "EXR 500T (5298) and EXR 50D (5248)" -- which is a mistake because EXR 50D is 5245; 5248 is EXR 100T. So I don't know which was used for the day shots but the bulk of the movie was 5298.


David, I believe that the article is completely wrong about the film stocks... Wasn't EXR 500T (5298) discontinued around the time Kubrick was shooting "Eyes Wide Shut" in 1996 and then replaced by 5279?

:unsure:
  • 0

#18 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 19 December 2005 - 09:10 PM

David, I believe that the article is completely wrong about the film stocks... Wasn't EXR 500T (5298) discontinued around the time Kubrick was shooting "Eyes Wide Shut" in 1996 and then replaced by 5279?

:unsure:


No, 5279 just came onto the market at the time Kubrick was starting "Eyes Wide Shut" but he decided to stick to 5298 because he felt it pushed by two stops better. Kodak didn't discontinue 5298 until 2003, a whopping seven-year overlap. See:

http://www.kodak.com....1.6.20.8&lc=en

Quite a number of DP's liked the more contrasty EXR 500T 5298, plus TV producers liked the lower price, hence why Kodak kept it going for so long after 5279 was introduced. It was pretty much the intro of 5218 (Vision-2 500T) in 2002 that made Kodak consider dropping 5298 -- they were carrying five 500T stocks on the books at that point (5298, 5279, 5218, 5284, 5263)!

I remember being surprised that John Seale shot "Dreamcatcher" (2003) on 5298.
  • 0

#19 Ignacio Aguilar

Ignacio Aguilar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 398 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Madrid, Spain

Posted 19 December 2005 - 09:14 PM

Thanks for the info and the correction.

:)
  • 0

#20 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 19 December 2005 - 10:42 PM

I remember reading the article in question on Jeepers Creepers about a year ago. As I recall, the decision to shoot on EXR 500T was not due to any "look" that the production had in mind, but rather the good deal that Kodak gave them on the stock. That kinda makes this discussion on the look they had in mind pointless, as the stock choice was (sadly) dictated by price rather than a particular aesthetic look. With that in mind, I really did enjoy the really punchy look that Jeepers had when I saw it, albeit only after it came out on disc.

Regards.
~Karl Borowski
  • 0


Wooden Camera

CineTape

Opal

Tai Audio

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

The Slider

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

Opal

Tai Audio

Wooden Camera

CineTape

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport