Edited by Saul Pincus, 16 June 2007 - 12:31 AM.
Jump to content
Indiana Jones 4: Panavision anamorphic, Super 35, or HD?
87 replies to this topic
Posted 16 June 2007 - 12:28 AM
With INDY 4 ramping up, does anyone on this board have a sense of what's actually happening with regard to format? Is anyone in the know?
Edited by Saul Pincus, 16 June 2007 - 12:31 AM.
Posted 16 June 2007 - 12:31 AM
Just wild rumors at this point.
I heard that Kaminski was over at Panavision a few months ago doing tests on the Genesis, but that could have been for anything, a commercial, his own curiosity, etc.
Posted 16 June 2007 - 06:24 AM
according to imdb its anamorphic - not that they're super accurate but it would be great if it were true.
Posted 16 June 2007 - 10:27 AM
Surely it's a natural for anamorphic?
It's highly appropriate, and it's not like a show that size cares much for the currently-small cost differential.
Posted 16 June 2007 - 10:40 AM
Some people who have worked for Kaminski and Spielberg have told me that Spielberg hates anamorphic and felt he was pressured into shooting it by the DP's of the 1970's and 1980's that he worked with. Now this may be camera assistants' own dislike of anamorphic filtering back through their perceptions.
I've never met more people who didn't like anamorphic than camera assistants. I get more "why in the world would you shoot with anamorphic lenses?" from them than anyone else.
Although many DP's today also have that attitude. I talked to an ASC DP who has shot many famous anamorphic movies and I mentioned that I shot a recent anamorphic film and he said "Why would you do that? Audiences can't see the difference and Super-35 is so much easier to shoot."
In the ASC, you meet a lot of people who fall down on one side or the other on this issue.
Considering Kaminski's and Spielberg's preference for spherical lenses, I'm not sure why they'd go back to anamorphic (and I think Kaminski has only shot one anamorphic feature, "Tall Tale").
Posted 16 June 2007 - 10:54 AM
I wonder if we'll ever see another anamorphic Bond movie now.
In my opinion Spielberg's best stuff visually came from that "pressured" photographic approach.
Posted 16 June 2007 - 12:41 PM
Just for fun I was watching the widescreen version of Raiders last night on DVD and kind of felt that many of the shots seemed like they were using too short a millimeter lens for most shots. There was too much distortion on the fringes.
Now though I love widescreen aspect ratios, I myself have never shot anamorphic. So there are probably some realities that I have not experienced personally. It just kind of looked like I would have preferred a longer lens for most shots.
But who am I to second guess the decisions of the artist 25 years later .... heheheheh. I still love the movie and can watch it over and over.
Posted 16 June 2007 - 04:33 PM
Posted 17 June 2007 - 07:58 AM
But I thought you were really into your anamorphic?
Posted 17 June 2007 - 01:46 PM
I meant all the focus pullers that I know. The one exception is of course the one that I always use, he loves it.
Posted 17 June 2007 - 02:34 PM
Is he into extreme sports by any chance?
Posted 21 June 2007 - 10:56 AM
We just shipped out their package two days ago. It's not digital, all film cameras. I work at Panavision and I have been begging for months to try to camera PA on this. If there's one movie in my life I could work on, it would probably be this one. (Unless they ever make Mad Max 4) I couldnt get on, they already had two camera PA's. Much to my chagrin.
I think they took out 8 or 9 cameras, mostly Platinum and Gold cameras.
*Im still kind of lost on the whole anamorphic vs super 35 thing, I thought you needed anamoprphic to achieve super 35? Aren't all Panavision lenses anamorphic? I know what anamorphic means and all, I just get lost on anamorphic and non-anamorphic lenses and why they choose to use them or not.
Posted 21 June 2007 - 11:14 AM
Anamorphic will achieve the 2.35 aspect ratio by squeezing the picture horizontally onto a squarish negative area. Special lenses with an element to squeeze the picture must be used. Super 35 will get the same aspect ratio by cropping the top and bottom, taking advantage of less negative area but using spherical (regular) lenses)
Posted 21 June 2007 - 12:05 PM
Yeah, like shooting on 65mm
Posted 21 June 2007 - 12:22 PM
We seem to have established it's film. (Best news for this particular project, IMHO.)
Next query: true scope or S35?
Edited by Saul Pincus, 21 June 2007 - 12:24 PM.
Posted 21 June 2007 - 12:49 PM
I it must be anamorphic , if it was S35 ,sure Kaminski would have gone for Arricams .
Posted 21 June 2007 - 01:50 PM
I'm not hearing about this in any of the major London studios, has Speilberg abandoned shooting in the UK?
....and to think they gave him a knighthood for it, Yeesh!
Posted 21 June 2007 - 04:22 PM
Looks that way yes nothing being shot here on this one .
Posted 21 June 2007 - 05:23 PM
Shoot in on 35mm!
It wouldn't be the same otherwise. It needs that cine feel.
Posted 25 June 2007 - 11:30 PM
Indiana Jones.com posted a few fleeting snippets of day#1 EPK today ? you can clearly see they're shooting film.