Jump to content


Photo

The Draughtsman's Contract


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 Andy_Alderslade

Andy_Alderslade
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1055 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London, UK

Posted 29 January 2008 - 02:04 PM

Hi,

I noticed this page on the Kodak website,

http://www.kodak.com...s...2.4.6&lc=en

I found it particiularly interesting as I first saw the film several years ago in a Film Studies lecture, we had it projected of a 35mm print and I would never have guessed it was super16 back then, my eyes have become more aware of shooting formats since, but none the less its hard to remember it as anything less than an impressive, very strange film.

Cheers,
Andy
  • 0

#2 John Holland

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

Posted 29 January 2008 - 02:26 PM

Andy it was one of the first S16 blow up to 35mm Curtis Clark Dop did a great job on it several friends of mine worked on it . I still dont understand whats it about really .
  • 0

#3 Andy_Alderslade

Andy_Alderslade
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1055 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London, UK

Posted 29 January 2008 - 02:41 PM

Andy it was one of the first S16 blow up to 35mm Curtis Clark Dop did a great job on it several friends of mine worked on it . I still dont understand whats it about really .


Yea what was with that strange statue walking around!!!
  • 0

#4 John Holland

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

Posted 29 January 2008 - 02:59 PM

poop mate dont ask me , Greenaway has carried on the same way ever since nice pictures but narrative forget it .
  • 0

#5 Rod Otaviano

Rod Otaviano
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Other

Posted 31 January 2008 - 12:50 AM

Yea what was with that strange statue walking around!!!

Yeah, that was really strange, mainly during that first dinner on the patio at night. You could barely see it.

I watched this film about two months ago in an art-house theater here in Vancouver. 35mm print. I thought it looked pretty good, image-wise, a bit soft in some shots, but not distracting. As for the movie, although I'm very into "artsy" films, I didn't quite like this one in particular. Some times it felt like I was watching a theater play instead of a movie, and that turned me off a little. But in spite of that ... it was worth watching it. First time I saw a S16 movie on the big screen.
  • 0

#6 Pawel Saladziak

Pawel Saladziak
  • Sustaining Members
  • 76 posts
  • Producer
  • Poland - Poznań

Posted 31 January 2008 - 05:00 AM

poop mate dont ask me , Greenaway has carried on the same way ever since nice pictures but narrative forget it .


Well, I saw this movie more than twice for sure, and even for the first time - the main story was obvious and easy for understanding, so in narrative layer - do the job.

Maybe it ould be easier to understand it while you read a bit:

http://www.imdb.com/...083851/synopsis


p.
  • 0

#7 Michael Lehnert

Michael Lehnert
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1086 posts
  • Other
  • London, UK / Basel, CH

Posted 07 February 2008 - 02:18 PM

Leaving Greenaway's aesthetics aside (I think his recent hiatus says all about doing the same concept in various clothes again and again and again), I must admit when I first saw the film nearly a decade ago on ARTE (they cleaned-up the print before a new telecine was done), I would have never guessed that it was shot on Super 16.

I realised that from reading about I think in an InCamera issue a while back, and it suprised me. I wonder if shooting Super 16 for theatrical release (even on arthouse screens only) would be even less noticeable for the audience using 25-years-later technology than it was in 1982?
  • 0

#8 John Holland

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

Posted 07 February 2008 - 02:24 PM

Michael yes is the answer shooting S16 and going the DI route [ a process i hate in 35mm] does produce great results . Have you seen " The Last King of Africa ] ?
  • 0

#9 Michael Lehnert

Michael Lehnert
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1086 posts
  • Other
  • London, UK / Basel, CH

Posted 07 February 2008 - 03:29 PM

Michael yes is the answer shooting S16 and going the DI route [ a process i hate in 35mm] does produce great results .


Thanks for the straighforward clarification! Would it be recommendable to use lower ISO film stocks like 7217 and below or is the DI chain soo good that even 7218 wouldn't give you noticable grain that would make someone of us here in the forum say in cinema: "Umm, I think that's Super 16 and not 35..."


Have you seen " The Last King of Africa ] ?


No, I missed it when it ran in cinema, and I know it was shot on S16 and I wanted to see it because of that. Am still angry against myself for missing the opportunity to see in projected :( . Was it a revelation-like viewing?
  • 0


Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

CineTape

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

CineLab

Wooden Camera

Glidecam

Opal

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

Technodolly

CineTape

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Opal

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

Visual Products

Abel Cine

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

Willys Widgets

Broadcast Solutions Inc