Jump to content


Photo

MI:3 High Def?


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 Arni Heimir

Arni Heimir
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Other
  • Reykjavik/Barcelona

Posted 06 February 2006 - 10:32 AM

Do you guys think that Mission Impossible 3 is partly shot on HD?

Árni Heimir
  • 0

#2 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 06 February 2006 - 11:21 AM

I believe some night time areal shots were done on the F950. But the bulk of the movie should be 35mm
  • 0

#3 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 06 February 2006 - 11:25 AM

I believe some night time areal shots were done on the F950. But the bulk of the movie should be 35mm


Yes, someone told me that they shot some HD plates at night from a helicopter, but most people I ask say that there is no HD in the movie, so it's probably limited stuff, maybe for efx work.
  • 0

#4 Arni Heimir

Arni Heimir
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Other
  • Reykjavik/Barcelona

Posted 06 February 2006 - 01:09 PM

I am far from being an expert. But it really looks like High def video when Philip S. Hoffman threatens to hurt Tom Cruises girlfriend.

Do you think that they used the Vantage PV vision filter for the blue flares in that film? It doesn't feel like the generic Panavision flares.
  • 0

#5 Ignacio Aguilar

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

Posted 06 February 2006 - 01:49 PM

To my eye the trailer clearly shows the classic out-of-focus ovals (instead of circles) associated to anamorphic lenses.
  • 0

#6 Ignacio Aguilar

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

Posted 06 February 2006 - 02:10 PM

Posted Image

Posted Image
  • 0

#7 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 06 February 2006 - 03:34 PM

The movie was shot by Dan Mindel, who is a big fan of Panavision anamorphic, so there's no reason to suspect he was trying to trick people into believing he shot anamorphic when he could just shoot anamorphic for real (plus the other two Mission Impossible movies were anamorphic anyway.)
  • 0

#8 Ignacio Aguilar

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

Posted 06 February 2006 - 03:54 PM

At first I thought they were going to shoot it in Super 35, since Andrew Lesnie was fired from MI:2 due to his slow shooting pace while using anamorphic for the first time (he was replaced by Jeff Kimball).

Plus here in Spain there was a rumor about Cruise forbidding director Alejandro Amenábar and DP Javier Aguirresarobe [AEC] using anamorphic for "The Others" (2001) -which he co-executive produced- because of the delays MI:2 had had in Sydney with Lesnie.
  • 0

#9 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 06 February 2006 - 04:11 PM

At first I thought they were going to shoot it in Super 35, since Andrew Lesnie was fired from MI:2 due to his slow shooting pace while using anamorphic for the first time (he was replaced by Jeff Kimball).

Plus here in Spain there was a rumor about Cruise forbidding director Alejandro Amenábar and DP Javier Aguirresarobe [AEC] using anamorphic for "The Others" (2001) -which he co-executive produced- because of the delays MI:2 had had in Sydney with Lesnie.


Yet he was also one of the producers of "The Last Samurai" after that, and it was shot in anamorphic even though the director had only used Super-35 and 1.85 in the past. I'm sure John Toll was the reason, but obviously Cruise didn't stop them from using anamorphic on that one.
  • 0

#10 Brad Grimmett

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

Posted 06 February 2006 - 07:43 PM

A friend of mine operated on second unit, and they did indeed shoot Anamorphic. Not sure whether they used any HD on the rest of the film.
  • 0

#11 jbraver

jbraver
  • Guests

Posted 06 February 2006 - 11:55 PM

http://www.missionim...rette1_full.mov

It looks like 35mm

I like the use of the spydercam on that tracking shot in china. looks cool

jake
  • 0

#12 Arni Heimir

Arni Heimir
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Other
  • Reykjavik/Barcelona

Posted 07 February 2006 - 07:37 AM

Why do you think that anamorphic is so unpopular these days? More importantly, do you think that the lens manufacturers are phasing this format out?
  • 0

#13 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 07 February 2006 - 11:26 AM

I wouldn't call anamorphic unpopular, especially since it sill gives you the highest quality image. But the reason most big-budget fims shoot Super 35 is because they are very effects heavy and effects houses prefer Super 35. Also focus-pulling in anamorphic is harder, so if you shoot lots of action with actors close to the camera spherical lenses make more sense. There are very few directors who are pushing for anamorphic if they do action/effects movies nowadays. One being Michael Bay, who had some very interesting purpose build lenses for 'The Island'. Among other things they adapted some wide angle spherical Primos so that he would get deep-focus shots that could not have been achieved with a regualr anamorphic lens.

The anamorphic format is not being phased out. Arri were never big on it to begin with, but Panavision and other smaller companies like Vantage and Joe Dunton are still continuing its development.
  • 0

#14 Robert Sanders

Robert Sanders
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Director
  • Studio City, CA

Posted 07 February 2006 - 12:04 PM

Also, anamorphic is very video unfriendly. The 4x3 center-cut from anamorphic frames simply look terrible.

Additionally, I think a lot of directors like to readjust framing in post. Super35 gives them extra room to readjust the head room; which is great for fixing fast action shots where the operator over/under compensates.

But, I have to admit that I adore the "look" of anamorphic. I love how racks look, how lens flares behave, and the extreme curvatures on the edges of the frame. Plus the grain structure is so tight because so much of the negative is used.

But once you gotta telecine it...ugh.

Edited by Starway2001, 07 February 2006 - 12:05 PM.

  • 0

#15 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 07 February 2006 - 03:49 PM

With the advent of 16/9 televisions and broadcast, Pan & Scan is much less common that it used to be. Especially Dvds respect the original ratio pretty much all the time.
  • 0

#16 Robert Sanders

Robert Sanders
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Director
  • Studio City, CA

Posted 07 February 2006 - 04:13 PM

Agreed. But HBO, SHOWTIME and the Networks still prefer to broadcast 4x3. Which is ironic considering that their original programming is now presented 16x9.

As much as I hate it, VHS is still a pretty big player. The format is definitely dying, but it still has legs. So anything produced anamorphically today still must grapple with 4x3 presentations on home video and broadcast.

Thank god, however, for DVD's and their predominence for 16x9 letterboxing.
  • 0


Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

CineLab

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

Technodolly

Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

FJS International, LLC

The Slider

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Glidecam

Tai Audio

CineLab

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Metropolis Post

Wooden Camera

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

Opal

rebotnix Technologies

Visual Products

Technodolly