Jump to content


Photo

"The Pride of the Yankees"


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 K Borowski

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

Posted 02 October 2008 - 09:45 AM

Not in a bad way, but, when I first saw it, I thought it must have been an early made for TV movie before they had invented the film chain or something.

Now that I've learned it was shot on film, as a theatrical release no less, I am even more confused, as there is no way they could have shot it 30 fps.

I've never seen it in theatres, but what accounts for the "live" look of this film? Frankly, I like it, and want to make my films look more like this. . .

24fps, to me, is a limitation, not something to aspire to emulate with an HDV camcorder.
  • 0

#2 Thomas James

Thomas James
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 844 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 02 October 2008 - 06:37 PM

When we make the switch to digital 4K projection movies can be projected up to 60 frames per second. Action movies will benefit because 24 frames per second is not good for action movies. The photographer will still have a choice as to the framerate that will be projected as the drama portions of a movie will be projected at 24 frames per second to preserve the film look and the action parts of the movie projected at higher speeds so the picture does not fall apart. With Blu-Ray disc technology a movie can be displayed at 60 frames per second on an HDTV. Also 120 hertz televisions can display movies up to 120 frames per second and double the framerate. A photographer can then shoot at a very high shutter speed like they did in the movie Gladiator and not worry about blurring the footage to simulate motion because the television itself will create the extra frames. The ASC which loves to limit a photographer to only 24 frames per second is like telling him how to set the shutter speed or how far he can open the iris ot telling him he can use only 16mm stock.
  • 0

#3 Ira Ratner

Ira Ratner
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 558 posts
  • Other
  • Coral Springs, Florida

Posted 02 October 2008 - 06:45 PM

Karl, you're really not joking that you thought it was made for TV?

They didn't do made for TVs back then for the simple reason that Pride of the Yankees came out in the mid 40s--during WWII.

You young whipper-snappers:

For God's sake--the BABE was in that movie!
  • 0

#4 Walter Graff

Walter Graff
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1334 posts
  • Other
  • New York City

Posted 02 October 2008 - 09:33 PM

When we make the switch to digital 4K projection movies can be projected up to 60 frames per second. Action movies will benefit because 24 frames per second is not good for action movies.


Sounds like the same silly argument about what makes RED such a 'good' camera. But as 24fps goes, it seems to have done pretty well to action films to me:

Top grossing films of all time

2. The Dark Knight (2008) $524,474,6843. Star Wars (1977) $460,935,6657. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006) $423,032,628 8. Spider-Man (2002) $403,706,375 9. Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)11. Spider-Man 2 (2004) $373,377,89313. Jurassic Park (1993) $356,784,00016. Spider-Man 3 (2007) $336,530,3020. Transformers (2007) $318,759,914 21. Iron Man (2008) $318,298,180 22. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) $317,557,891 23. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) $316,849,472 24. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) $313,837,577 25. Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002) $310,675,583 26. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007) $309,404,152 27. Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983) $309,125,409 28. Independence Day (1996) $306,124,059 29. Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) $305,388,68531. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007) $292,000,866 32. The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005) $291,709,845 33. Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980) $290,158,751 34. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005) $289,994,39736. The Matrix Reloaded (2003) $281,492,47942. Jaws (1975) $260,000,000 43. I Am Legend (2007) $256,386,216 44. Monsters, Inc. (2001) $255,870,172 45. Batman (1989) $251,188,924 46. Night at the Museum (2006) $250,863,268 47. Men in Black (1997) $250,147,615ETC, ETC
  • 0

#5 Walter Graff

Walter Graff
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1334 posts
  • Other
  • New York City

Posted 02 October 2008 - 09:36 PM

Karl, you're really not joking that you thought it was made for TV?

They didn't do made for TVs back then for the simple reason that Pride of the Yankees came out in the mid 40s--during WWII.

You young whipper-snappers:

For God's sake--the BABE was in that movie!



I never saw Babe in that movie. If he was, he would have routed a huge hole in center field looking for food. What would a pig be doing in a movie about the Yankees anyway.
  • 0

#6 Jonathan Bowerbank

Jonathan Bowerbank
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2815 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 02 October 2008 - 09:57 PM

It's been a long time since I saw it, but I think he only made a quick cameo on a train after the Yank's had won the penant. He's really prominent in the frame, so he'd be hard to miss.
  • 0

#7 Walter Graff

Walter Graff
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1334 posts
  • Other
  • New York City

Posted 02 October 2008 - 10:00 PM

It's been a long time since I saw it, but I think he only made a quick cameo on a train after the Yank's had won the penant. He's really prominent in the frame, so he'd be hard to miss.


Was that the scene when they were eating BLT's in the club car?
  • 0

#8 Thomas James

Thomas James
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 844 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 02 October 2008 - 10:35 PM

Pirates of the Caribean was projected at 24 frames per second in movie theatres but at Best Buy it was demonstrated at 48 frames per second using a 120 hertz television. Of course you may say that it looked like a cheesy soap opera but Pirates of the Caribean is a cheesy movie anyway so who cares if it looks like video?
  • 0

#9 Ruairi Robinson

Ruairi Robinson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 279 posts
  • Director
  • Los Angeles

Posted 03 October 2008 - 12:08 AM

Pirates of the Caribean was projected at 24 frames per second in movie theatres but at Best Buy it was demonstrated at 48 frames per second using a 120 hertz television. Of course you may say that it looked like a cheesy soap opera but Pirates of the Caribean is a cheesy movie anyway so who cares if it looks like video?



The cinematographer might.
  • 0

#10 Ira Ratner

Ira Ratner
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 558 posts
  • Other
  • Coral Springs, Florida

Posted 03 October 2008 - 04:37 AM

The Babe was in a locker room scene or two also, I think.
  • 0

#11 K Borowski

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

Posted 04 October 2008 - 06:46 AM

When we make the switch to digital 4K projection movies can be projected up to 60 frames per second. Action movies will benefit because 24 frames per second is not good for action movies. The photographer will still have a choice as to the framerate that will be projected as the drama portions of a movie will be projected at 24 frames per second to preserve the film look and the action parts of the movie projected at higher speeds so the picture does not fall apart. With Blu-Ray disc technology a movie can be displayed at 60 frames per second on an HDTV. Also 120 hertz televisions can display movies up to 120 frames per second and double the framerate. A photographer can then shoot at a very high shutter speed like they did in the movie Gladiator and not worry about blurring the footage to simulate motion because the television itself will create the extra frames. The ASC which loves to limit a photographer to only 24 frames per second is like telling him how to set the shutter speed or how far he can open the iris ot telling him he can use only 16mm stock.


Hi, I wonder if you could tell me what the **(obscenity removed)** does this have anything to do with my question? Thanks.





Ira, I thought it was made in the '50s. When I saw it was from '42, obviously I realized that wasn't the case. And hey, if Biden thought FDR went on TV to announce the Great Depression, you can cut me some slack ;-)

This isn't a film vs. digital debate. I want to know what makes the movie look different from other movies of that time please, and was wondering perhaps if academy had something to do with it.
  • 0

#12 Ira Ratner

Ira Ratner
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 558 posts
  • Other
  • Coral Springs, Florida

Posted 04 October 2008 - 10:11 AM

NOW I understand what you're saying.

The thing is, any "made for TV movies" in the early 50s were only saved for posterity via Kinescope, so they weren't done on film in the first place . They were stage performances, and nothing was ever filmed and edited prior and then just shown on TV.

"Marty" with Rod Steiger is a GREAT one to watch, and "Requiem for a Heavyweight" with Jack Palance. (NOT Anthony Quinn.)

You already know this stuff, but your carbon-dating is just off a little.

As a matter of fact, I don't even think Made for TV movies really came about until like the LATE 60s, and that was Hallmark's Masterpiece Theater. Don't quote me on that exactly, but they just didn't produce movies for television until way, way later.

I'm old (51) andhave no life, so I remember this stuff. I must have seen "Pride of the Yankees" a hundred times on TV before I was 10, and growing up in Brooklyn contributed to that number--where all of the local stations played it every chance they got.

Edited by Ira Ratner, 04 October 2008 - 10:13 AM.

  • 0

#13 Thomas James

Thomas James
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 844 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 04 October 2008 - 11:14 AM

To answer your question any film no matter when it was made will look like video when viewed on a 120 hertz television. This is because the television will upconvert 24 frames per second to 48 frames per second by interpolating the in between frames. Since the 120 hertz format is very popular for high end high definition televisions can I assume there is a chance that you already own this television?
  • 0

#14 Walter Graff

Walter Graff
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1334 posts
  • Other
  • New York City

Posted 04 October 2008 - 12:19 PM

As for the movie, remember two things, you are watching a movie that has been remastered. Doing so it was cleaned up considerably in it's digital remastering. Second, you are watching a black and white film. Black and white is what your eye uses to see detail. Black and white films in general always look sharper than color. And that brings me to the film itself. I have seen it recently and the blacks are very rich. The whites are pure. It was cleaned up quite well. I also think it just happens to have been shot well. Don't know what stock was used then, but it is like some of the very sharp looking black and whites of the time. It has lots of lights and dark's in it which is probably a factor as opposed to lots of grey values and little rich blacks to whites which was a common method of the era. Willis did the same thing in Manhattan, having the wardrobe person dress everyone and having the sets made for contrast. Hence it has amazing ranges of luminance looking real good.

As for 120 hz, turn it off if you have the feature and don't like the effect.
  • 0

#15 Jean Dodge

Jean Dodge
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 110 posts
  • Director

Posted 23 April 2009 - 10:48 AM

What Walter said about B+W and detail is very crucial. Watch MANHATTAN and see if you like that look, but also check out other "Retro" B+W films like YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN or THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO LITTLE, or DEAD MEN DON'T WEAR PLAID, et al. If you see things in them you also like, it may be easier to accurately recreate those looks than from a film shot in 1942.

But getting back to TPOTY, It's also a baseball movie, which is an activity that lends itself to wide lenses and deep focus. We tend to want to see the second baseman in focus behind the pitcher, for example in a medium shot of the guy on the mound, so we can tell if he is a base runner or a guy on the same team. And, whenever we see huge crowds, it's second unit footage shot in bright sunlight, etc. or even stock footage from newsreels. The cumulative effect of seeing all those f8, f16, f32 shots may influence your perception of the overall look, not to mention whatever collective TV baseball memories you carry around in your head that may be influencing your subconscious.

Also, Super XX film and a new fine grain release print stock were both around post 1939. So called Fine Grain Release Positive was very slow, and sensitive only to the blue violet and ultra-violet light - so they used mercury arc lights as the print light. (You can read more about Super XX and the fine grain release print stock in the Carringer book on the making of Citizen Kane, another film that went for deep focus and tight grain, and was lit with a lot of firepower, face melting firepower.) But consider that at least some of this film may have been shot outdoors with Super XX, and wasn't recording the same spectrum of sunlight the way other earlier B+W films were. The live crowd scenes stand out in a film from 1942 - the height of the "do it all in the studio" era, and yet one needs to recall that the film makers were doing everything they could to integrate the stuff with the studio shots.

Now, you are too young to remember but us "older" guys in our 40s still recall when Arc lights were used on set, carbon arc "brutes," and while 12k and 18k HMIs are great, there is nothing like carbon arc lighting... it was some amazing stuff. People lit with arc lights looked different than people lit with HMIs. It was even more of a pinpoint source, and the spectrum is different. If you go to a REAL movie theater (snark, snark) and see a film projected with the equipment that suited the era, ie, a carbon arc projector lamp the film will look more like it was intended to look, and your comparison to video may change a bit.

It is also possible that the cinematographer may have selected a tighter shutter opening in the A camera, to help cut down on the amount of light coming in for bright sunlit scenes. I have no knowledge of this but it is a good way to keep action looking crisper, and to shoot at stops where your lenses perform best, as opposed to adding ND filters.

Needless to say you like this look and say you are hoping to emulate it. But please define where you are looking at the POTY film, from what source and more importantly, what your intention is in recreating it - do you mean recreating it for "Straight to Blu-Ray?" or for 35mm release prints, of for 2K projection in an average small festival, etc? You may have some interesting options if you know you are never going to film-out.

Again I am talking out of my hat but I wonder if some of this film was shot with cameras fitted with pellicle-based viewing, and if that partial mirror contributed to the look you are seeing. There are so many, many factors to consider, we've barely scratched the surface here.

In the end, there are two answers you seek - one is how THEY did it in 1942, and the second is how YOU can do it in 2009, huh? These will be different answers, natch. The answer is, research and TEST TEST, TEST. Best of luck, and let us know what conclusions you come to.
  • 0

#16 K Borowski

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

Posted 23 April 2009 - 10:54 AM

Everyone seems to have come to the conclusion that I've never seen any other B&W movies, which isn't the case.

I've shot thousands of feet of Plus, Double, and Tri-X stocks too.

So I am pretty confident that what I am seeing when I watch this film has absolutely nothing to do with lighting, film, or B&W.

I watched it on a 1998 TV, not a 120Hz model too, so this has nothing to do with my TV settings being wonky or my being an ignorant vidiot.


There is something distinctly different about "Pride of the Yankees" from any other B&W film I've seen. Maybe what I am seeing is the effects of old age and an only-partially-successful digital restoration.
  • 0

#17 K Borowski

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

Posted 23 April 2009 - 10:57 AM

Karl, you're really not joking that you thought it was made for TV?

They didn't do made for TVs back then for the simple reason that Pride of the Yankees came out in the mid 40s--during WWII.

You young whipper-snappers:

For God's sake--the BABE was in that movie!


Yes, I'm well aware TV didn't catch on until the '50s. But they were making B&W television in the early '40s, nonetheless, even back into the '30s. I thought perhaps this might have been the case here.

Originally I saw it and thought it was just a regular theatrical film. Yes, I know that The Babe is played by The Babe in the movie.


But last time I saw it, something looked funny about it. It doesn't look like 24fps 35mm film, fine-grained or not.
  • 0

#18 Jason Debus

Jason Debus
  • Sustaining Members
  • 311 posts
  • Student
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 23 April 2009 - 11:29 AM

Hi Karl,

Hulu has the movie up in it's entirety through IMDb, check it out:

http://www.imdb.com/...035211/trailers

This version looks fine to me, I'm guessing there was something strange with the transfer you saw. Or perhaps you can point out what you are seeing in this version.
  • 0

#19 K Borowski

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

Posted 23 April 2009 - 12:08 PM

Hi Karl,

Hulu has the movie up in it's entirety through IMDb, check it out:

http://www.imdb.com/...035211/trailers

This version looks fine to me, I'm guessing there was something strange with the transfer you saw. Or perhaps you can point out what you are seeing in this version.


Thanks Jason> IDK if my circa 2003 iMac can handle a full-length film on Hulu, but if it can I'll check it out and report back!

IDK though, LCD monitors (which I got with reservation) tend to add a whole new dimension of problems.

If there were a CRT HD-TV on the market, I'd gobble one up in a second!
  • 0

#20 K Borowski

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

Posted 23 April 2009 - 12:25 PM

Does anyone know of a video store that regularly stocks this film? Sorry Jason, HULU crashed my computer. . .
  • 0


rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

Opal

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Glidecam

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

CineLab

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

Opal

FJS International, LLC

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

Paralinx LLC

Glidecam

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

Wooden Camera

The Slider

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

Willys Widgets

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS