Jump to content


Photo

Spider-Man 3


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 David Sweetman

David Sweetman
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 757 posts
  • Student

Posted 29 April 2007 - 11:54 PM

The AC article mentions that VistaVision was used for some VFX work. Am I to understand this is the same 'lazy-8' 8-perf format that was used on films such as The Searchers??? I had troble finding information about this "Beaucam" online.
  • 0

#2 James Steven Beverly

James Steven Beverly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4199 posts
  • Director
  • El Paso, Texas

Posted 30 April 2007 - 12:42 AM

Did you Google?

Beaucam
Posted Image


The Beaumont Vista Vision camera is a lightweight motion picture camera that records an image on a full 8-perforation 35mm film format. The larger negative size is ideal for post process composites of visual effects photography. The compact feature of the camera is beneficial for any type of plate photography including Steadicam and remote systems applications. In 2003 Geo Film Group purchased The Secret Labs camera department, which included some of the cleanest Mini Vista Vision cameras in existence. These cameras are available in Panavision, PL, and Leica lens mounts. Complete sets of re-barreled, Panavision mounted Leica lenses compliment each camera package.

Specs:

Length: 17? with 400? magazine
24? with standard lens and MB-18 matte box

Width: 14? with 400? magazine
20? with 1000? magazine

Height: 14? with eyepiece
9? without eyepiece

Speeds: 2fps ? 72fps
  • 0

#3 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 30 April 2007 - 12:51 AM

Yes, VistaVision (8-perf 35mm horizontal) was created in 1954 as Paramount's answer to the widescreen large format trend. After a number of features was shot in the format, it was discontinued by the end of the decade, to be resurrected by the "Star Wars" effects team as a format for shooting efx elements, to counteract the increase in grain due to optical printer duping (I believe it was Richard Edlund's idea). Doug Trumbull was already using 65mm for the same reasons around that time, but VistaVision had the advantage of being 35mm.

This led to some new 8-perf MOS cameras being built like the Wilcams and the Beaumont.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/VistaVision
http://www.widescree...een/vvstory.htm
  • 0

#4 James Steven Beverly

James Steven Beverly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4199 posts
  • Director
  • El Paso, Texas

Posted 30 April 2007 - 02:02 AM

Someone had a VistaVision camera and projector with some other equipment on sale on ebay a while back. I think they wanted like 12 grand for each. I don't remember for sure but I do remember I thought it was kinda a lot for a specialty camera that whould see very little use. I guess if you've got a lot of compositing on film to do, it's the way to go, though.
  • 0

#5 Patrick Cooper

Patrick Cooper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 868 posts
  • Other

Posted 30 April 2007 - 04:26 AM

What an interesting concept....running 35mm movie film horizontally through a camera - just like IMAX! Very clever way of getting a super big widescreen image without using anamorphic lenses. Though I could see that you would lose a fair bit of what you gained when you print the format to vertical film.
  • 0

#6 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 30 April 2007 - 06:35 AM

And if you did add a anamorhic lens it became Technirama ,which could be printed on to 70mm which was then called Super Technirama 70 .
  • 0

#7 timHealy

timHealy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1252 posts
  • Other
  • New York

Posted 30 April 2007 - 09:15 AM

Yes, VistaVision (8-perf 35mm horizontal) was created in 1954 as Paramount's answer to the widescreen large format trend. After a number of features was shot in the format, it was discontinued by the end of the decade, to be resurrected by the "Star Wars" effects team as a format for shooting efx elements, to counteract the increase in grain due to optical printer duping (I believe it was Richard Edlund's idea). Doug Trumbull was already using 65mm for the same reasons around that time, but VistaVision had the advantage of being 35mm.

This led to some new 8-perf MOS cameras being built like the Wilcams and the Beaumont.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/VistaVision
http://www.widescree...een/vvstory.htm


If I recall correctly Edlund and ILM referred to their vistavision effects camera as "Empireflex". Which from memory looked very similiar to the way the Beaumont camera looks in the image above. They used it on Empire and Jedi. I don't know if it was around for the first (episode 4) Star Wars. Maybe someone here knows.

Best

Tim

Ah I just read the link. They seemed to have used some sort of vista vision camera for episode 4. But don't know if it was th "Epireflex" specifically.

Edited by timHealy, 30 April 2007 - 09:20 AM.

  • 0

#8 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 30 April 2007 - 09:58 AM

The Empireflex was built from the ground-up for "Empire Strikes Back", as the name suggests.
  • 0

#9 Tim Partridge

Tim Partridge
  • Guests

Posted 30 April 2007 - 10:58 AM

"Dykstraflex" was the mo-control camera on the first STAR WARS movie.

Don't forget that large format plates weren't really that new an idea when STAR WARS came out, Disney and Van Der Veer had been doing it for years (Trumbull too as David mentions). The difference with Edlund and ILM's use of VV was in the innovation regarding moving camera/motion control composites, which I think is what everyone has followed since.
  • 0

#10 James Steven Beverly

James Steven Beverly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4199 posts
  • Director
  • El Paso, Texas

Posted 03 May 2007 - 01:47 AM

Here you go, you can try it out:

Ebay item number: 270116823407

B)
  • 0

#11 Chris Keth

Chris Keth
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4427 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Los Angeles

Posted 04 May 2007 - 03:41 PM

Though I could see that you would lose a fair bit of what you gained when you print the format to vertical film.


That's kind of the idea, actually. With that downsizing you will also be downsizing your composites and making them look better.
  • 0

#12 Leo Anthony Vale

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

Posted 05 May 2007 - 02:03 PM

What an interesting concept....running 35mm movie film horizontally through a camera - just like IMAX! Very clever way of getting a super big widescreen image without using anamorphic lenses. Though I could see that you would lose a fair bit of what you gained when you print the format to vertical film.


But it would still look better than the print from the 4p OCN. And a contact print would be comparable to a 70mm print from a 65mm OCN. Only 1.96/1 instead of 2.2/1.
  • 0

#13 Krystian Ramlogan

Krystian Ramlogan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Student

Posted 05 May 2007 - 04:23 PM

Ok, sooo who's seen the movie?

...I have !!!

My initial thoughts, no spoilers.

I thought the cinematography was better this time around, especially the swinging/spydercam type shots. They all seemed more organic, flowed better with Spidey's movement, were clearer. The effects shots all looked clean and very very nicely lit; I barely noticed the grain - though there are some night shots (really there are a LOT of night shots in this film) where I saw a little extra grain, but it didin't bother me.

I really liked the angles, the coverage and the way the camera was always nicely position to give the audience the best seat possible!!!

I liked the colors - spidey still popped - and the lighting was especially good when they transitioned into "Dark Spidey" and then back again - although there were a lot of lighting changes throughout the film, I really thought they were effect, almost seamless, but definitely brought out the emotional elements within the scene.

I liked the way certain sequences seemed almost different: the chase sequence with Eddie Brock looked very distinct from let's say, the fight sequence between Dark Spidey and Sandman in the subway. I really liked the changes, the play on light and dark; the hard edges, the soft fronts...ok, it seems I liked everything!

I think the CGI has improved tremendously and cut well...but, I of course prefer the live action shots. It is fantastic the way they integrated the different elements into continuous shots however, and I must say that was pretty mind blowing for me. Things seem to be getting so, you can almost do anything now...of course, it costs a lot of money!

There's a lot more to say, but those would inevitably involve spoilers...so I'll wait till some more people have seen it and comment.

I'm going to see it again tmrw!

Go web go!

K.
  • 0

#14 Josh Bass

Josh Bass
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 552 posts
  • Other

Posted 05 May 2007 - 05:41 PM

I'm glad someone liked it. Seems to be getting crappy word of mouth. I liked part 2 a lot, was lukwarm on part 1, and I'm kinda scared to see this one 'cause of most of the reviews I've seen.
  • 0

#15 chuck colburn

chuck colburn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 389 posts
  • Other
  • orygun

Posted 05 May 2007 - 08:15 PM

The Empireflex was built from the ground-up for "Empire Strikes Back", as the name suggests.


Good evening David,

Almost but not quite from ground up.
Jimmy Beaumonte and I worked togeather at his shop in L.A. at he time of the start of the "Empireflex". The basic VistaVision movement was from an existing camera. What we did in L.A. was to breadboard the movement on a piece of tooling plate to find the best location for sprockets, rollers and where to position the Arri 35 mags that were used for the camera. Some work was also done on the mirror reflexing componets. After that Jimmy and his wife Hillary went up to Lucasville to finish the project.

Chuck
  • 0

#16 David Sweetman

David Sweetman
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 757 posts
  • Student

Posted 05 May 2007 - 10:16 PM

I thought the cinematography was better this time around, especially the swinging/spydercam type shots. They all seemed more organic, flowed better with Spidey's movement, were clearer.

Really? I thought Bill Pope's treatment of 2 was awesome, though it always feels like the image goes unnoticed in a Raimi movie. (with the exception of A Simple Plan.)
  • 0

#17 Patrick Cooper

Patrick Cooper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 868 posts
  • Other

Posted 05 May 2007 - 10:46 PM

"Though I could see that you would lose a fair bit of what you gained when you print the format to vertical film."

"That's kind of the idea, actually. With that downsizing you will also be downsizing your composites and making them look better."

I was referring to the use of Vistavision for regular narrative storytelling - where the whole movie would be shot using this format - like some of those old classics in the past. If they could overcome the technical hurdles and produce a reliable means of projecting the whole frame by transporting the film horizontally like IMAX, I am sure that the results would look quite impressive on the big screen.

Whenever I go to the cinema, I am surprised that the image quality is good as it is considering that the size of the frame being projected is only about half the size of a frame of 35mm still film.

Edited by Patrick Cooper, 05 May 2007 - 10:50 PM.

  • 0

#18 Krystian Ramlogan

Krystian Ramlogan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Student

Posted 06 May 2007 - 11:41 PM

Oh, I agree Spidey 2 was a step up. I'm just saying I think Spidey 3 is also a step up from 2. Its a more complicated film and I think it looks amazing.

K.
  • 0

#19 Francesco Bonomo

Francesco Bonomo
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 366 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • currently in Rome, Italy

Posted 07 May 2007 - 02:47 AM

Saw it yesterday and I didn't like it at all. Sure, it looks great and from a technical standpoint is almost flawless (it better be with a declared budget of 260$ million), but it looks like the screenwriters were so busy trying to just add stuff that they forgot about the story (which is confused and doesn't really go anywhere) and characters.

The action scenes are really cool and there's a couple of great cameos from Ted Raimi and Bruce Campbell, but overall the movie looks like too many scenes stitched together with some automated software, never knowing where the story is going.

I like the first SpiderMan, I thought the second was a major improvement, but the third chapter was a huge disappointment.
  • 0

#20 Patrick Cooper

Patrick Cooper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 868 posts
  • Other

Posted 09 May 2007 - 12:22 AM

Going back to efx work, Ive read that some productions utilize medium format still film for composites, according to Cinefex.
  • 0


Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

CineTape

Tai Audio

Metropolis Post

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

CineLab

Glidecam

Willys Widgets

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Opal

FJS International, LLC

The Slider

Opal

Ritter Battery

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

CineTape

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc