Jump to content


Photo

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#1 Reuel Gomez

Reuel Gomez
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 257 posts
  • Other

Posted 29 November 2013 - 05:14 PM

Wow. This was a great film. Much better than the first one. The writing was tight, characters from the last film whose roles were minor in nature are more fleshed out in this film, you really hate not just the villains, but the more armored and armed Peacekeepers (or as I like to call them, "flamboyant Stormtroopers"), the visual effects are by far light years ahead of the first film, and of course, the cinematography is top notch. It almost makes me want to see "Limitless" just for its cinematography. I thought intercutting IMAX and Super 35 wouldn't work out as far as grain goes but I hardly even noticed it. The handheld camera work wasn't very jarring and I think looked much better than it would've if it had just been a whole bunch of studio setups. And I l also liked the fact that they didn't throw a bright light at your face every second to show off those anamorphic flares. Speaking of which, I know they mostly used E-Series, but does anyone know if they used lighter lenses such as the C- or G-Series for the one Steadicam shot in the entire film or did the operater just deal with the weight of the E-Series?
  • 0

#2 John Holland

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

Posted 29 November 2013 - 05:55 PM

I wont be seeing this , but if its anamorphic its not Super 35 .
  • 0

#3 Reuel Gomez

Reuel Gomez
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 257 posts
  • Other

Posted 29 November 2013 - 08:31 PM

I wont be seeing this , but if its anamorphic its not Super 35 .

It was mostly shot in anamorphic 35mm but som scenes were shot in IMAX but some shots were done in Super 35 to crop to 1:44:1 so it could cut in with the IMAX footage better than cutting to a different aspect ratio.
  • 0

#4 Chris Millar

Chris Millar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1642 posts
  • Other

Posted 29 November 2013 - 09:37 PM

I thought intercutting IMAX and Super 35 wouldn't work out as far as grain goes but I hardly even noticed it.

 

Which is saying, well -  something...

 

hrrrm

:blink: 


  • 0

#5 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 30 November 2013 - 01:23 AM

I saw the movie digitally projected and most of it looked like 35mm anamorphic until they got to the jungle, and then it was so clear, fine-grained, and spherical that I assumed that they had switched to digital, maybe because they needed more sensitivity in the jungle, and I assumed the shallow focus was from using something like Master Primes wide-open.  But now I hear that it was IMAX, which explains the super shallow focus and the very clean images.  Anyway, it looked beautiful.


  • 0

#6 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4161 posts
  • Other
  • Went over the edge... Central Europe

Posted 30 November 2013 - 05:50 AM

It almost makes me want to see "Limitless" just for its cinematography. 

 

 

 

You should definitely check out Limitless. I was very pleasantly surprised by the movie. Good fun.

 

Freya


  • 0

#7 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11936 posts
  • Other

Posted 30 November 2013 - 07:30 AM

I saw the first one (at the Burbank AMC 16, which I strongly suspect is better than any UK cinema outside London) and found it utterly unremarkable. Irksome overdone shakycam in the opening few minutes, grey and tedious thereafter, and the writing suggested an absolute assumption that you'd read the book and that you already cared about the characters and understood their motivations. I also thought there were huge omissions from the plot on this basis, particularly the whole background to why these absurd brutalist games were being run and why the public tolerated them.

 

Also, the praise heaped upon Jennifer Lawrence was overstated. It was a perfectly competent performance but nothing special - it's not exactly a complicated role.

 

I thought it was pretty everyday, and I'm not that bothered about seeing the sequel.

 

P


  • 0

#8 Reuel Gomez

Reuel Gomez
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 257 posts
  • Other

Posted 30 November 2013 - 08:02 AM

 
You should definitely check out Limitless. I was very pleasantly surprised by the movie. Good fun.
 
Freya

I definitely will. I just need to find it at FYE first...
  • 0

#9 Reuel Gomez

Reuel Gomez
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 257 posts
  • Other

Posted 30 November 2013 - 08:05 AM

I saw the movie digitally projected and most of it looked like 35mm anamorphic until they got to the jungle, and then it was so clear, fine-grained, and spherical that I assumed that they had switched to digital, maybe because they needed more sensitivity in the jungle, and I assumed the shallow focus was from using something like Master Primes wide-open.  But now I hear that it was IMAX, which explains the super shallow focus and the very clean images.  Anyway, it looked beautiful.

I don't know how Jo Willems managed to handhold that gargantuan IMAX camera and how they managed to record good sound but somehow they did.
  • 0

#10 Reuel Gomez

Reuel Gomez
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 257 posts
  • Other

Posted 30 November 2013 - 08:36 AM

I kinda hope they do an ASC article on this, but I probably won't be able to read it because I don't have a subscription and Wolf of Wall Street is already set as their cover story for next month.
  • 0

#11 Tim Tyler

Tim Tyler

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1291 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Olympia, WA (US)

Posted 30 November 2013 - 12:44 PM

Jo_Willems_IMAX_handheld.jpg

 

From a Q&A with director Francis Lawrence:

 

Speaking of filming style: will there be lots of herky-jerky camerawork in Catching Fire, like there is in Ross’ movie? 

 

"Well", Lawrence said, “No! [Laughs.] No shaky cam. I think a lot of people will be happy to hear that.”

 


  • 0

#12 Dave Thompson

Dave Thompson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • Steadicam Operator

Posted 30 November 2013 - 02:27 PM

Reuel-

I was the A camera/Steadicam operator on "CF". The movie was anamorphic up until the moment JL rises up into the arena. That is when the screen opens up and becomes IMAX. We shot most of the arena in IMAX with a select few scenes in spherical 35mm. But for the most part, it was all IMAX. Handholding an IMAX camera is definitely a beast but doable. As well as putting it on the Steadicam, heavy but manageable. For the anamorphic portion, we used mainly Cs, E's, and a few select primo anamorphics. No Gs. E's on the steadi are no problem in my opinion. Mostly the film was 90% handheld. There's a few Steadicam shots, cablecam and techno shots, but mostly Francis and Jo preferred I do it handheld. I have some photos somewhere with the MSM on the steadi that I have to dig up. If you have any questions, please ask away.

Dave Thompsonimage.jpg
  • 2

#13 Reuel Gomez

Reuel Gomez
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 257 posts
  • Other

Posted 30 November 2013 - 05:16 PM

Thanks, Dave.
 
What focal lengths did you use on both the anamorphic 35mm footage and IMAX footage? Did you gravitate more toward wide or telephoto lenses? 
 
How many lenses in total did you carry?
 
And how does operating an IMAX camera compare to operating a regular 35mm camera?
  • 0

#14 Dave Thompson

Dave Thompson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • Steadicam Operator

Posted 30 November 2013 - 05:57 PM

Anamorphic we had lenses from a 30mm to the 180mm in primes. C, E, primo. Mixed. Zooms we carried the 40-80, 70-200 and a wicked 11-1. Handheld of course. IMAX we had available to us 40mm to 350mm in primes. We didn't really lean in one direction between wide and long lenses. Francis has a tendency to shoot on the wider/closer side but we often would do close ups on 100 or 135mm.

The MSM cameras are finicky. Heavy for handheld and steadi. They are just boxy all around. Not very ergo. The film displacement shakes the camera a tad bc of the speed and size of the film moving thru the gate. We set it up as not to hinder the movie in terms of shooting speed. The rest of the film was handheld and we moved fast, IMAX had to be no different. Handholding it and treating the same as a 35mm was a priority.
  • 0

#15 Reuel Gomez

Reuel Gomez
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 257 posts
  • Other

Posted 30 November 2013 - 06:07 PM

Anamorphic we had lenses from a 30mm to the 180mm in primes. C, E, primo. Mixed. Zooms we carried the 40-80, 70-200 and a wicked 11-1. Handheld of course. IMAX we had available to us 40mm to 350mm in primes. We didn't really lean in one direction between wide and long lenses. Francis has a tendency to shoot on the wider/closer side but we often would do close ups on 100 or 135mm.

The MSM cameras are finicky. Heavy for handheld and steadi. They are just boxy all around. Not very ergo. The film displacement shakes the camera a tad bc of the speed and size of the film moving thru the gate. We set it up as not to hinder the movie in terms of shooting speed. The rest of the film was handheld and we moved fast, IMAX had to be no different. Handholding it and treating the same as a 35mm was a priority.

350mm? That's pretty long. We're you still able to get good sound despite how loud the MSM's were?
  • 0

#16 Dave Thompson

Dave Thompson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • Steadicam Operator

Posted 30 November 2013 - 06:14 PM

Sound was pretty bad. A lot of it was ADRed. 350mm is tight but not really that tight in IMAX. It looked amazing!! The shots on JL shooting the arrow at the dome, that was the 350mm.
  • 0

#17 Tim Tyler

Tim Tyler

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1291 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Olympia, WA (US)

Posted 30 November 2013 - 06:15 PM

A 350mm lens on an Imax camera would deliver a field of view similar to a 180mm lens on Super-35, I think.
  • 0

#18 Dave Thompson

Dave Thompson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • Steadicam Operator

Posted 30 November 2013 - 06:28 PM

Very close in field of view. It was tight, but workable. DOF is a whole other story!!! Great focus puller, Gregor Tavenner. He is a magician!!
  • 0

#19 Reuel Gomez

Reuel Gomez
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 257 posts
  • Other

Posted 30 November 2013 - 06:30 PM

Are you working on Mockingjay Parts 1 &2 Dave?
  • 0

#20 Dave Thompson

Dave Thompson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • Steadicam Operator

Posted 30 November 2013 - 06:32 PM

Yes.
  • 0


FJS International, LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Opal

rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

Glidecam

CineLab

CineTape

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Opal

Paralinx LLC

Technodolly

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

Visual Products

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

CineTape

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

Ritter Battery

CineLab