Jump to content


Photo

Could someone clarify this American Cinematographer quote, please?


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 cole t parzenn

cole t parzenn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 288 posts
  • Other

Posted 17 August 2014 - 09:29 PM

From the article on "The Tree of Life:"

The picture was shot in standard 1.85:1, in 4-perf for maximum resolution and low grain. Lubezki explains, “Even though anamorphic has more resolution, we decided on 1.85 because the close focus was going to be extreme — we were so close to the kids, their faces, hands and feet. And we didn’t want the grain of Super 35.”  

 

Being that they did a 4k DI, what was the advantage of shooting Regular 35?

 

Grazie.


Edited by cole t parzenn, 17 August 2014 - 09:31 PM.

  • 0

#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 20181 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 August 2014 - 11:28 PM

I think he meant that he didn't want the grain of Super-35 cropped to 2.40.

 

As for Super-35 for 1.85 versus regular 1.85, I think this decision was partially because they weren't sure when they started shooting as to whether they would do a D.I.  Later in testing for the finished project, Lubezki felt that the D.I. was bringing out extra detail and resolution that a straight contact print wasn't.  I saw the movie in a 4K theater and he certainly got some of the best quality I've ever seen out of 35mm.  But had he known up front that he was going to do a D.I., he probably would have shot full aperture / Super-35 for 1.85 because the reasons not to use the extra soundtrack width for picture information are pretty small.


  • 1

#3 cole t parzenn

cole t parzenn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 288 posts
  • Other

Posted 17 August 2014 - 11:47 PM

I figured that the Super 35-grain comment was in reference to 2.40, too, though the context makes it a bit ambiguous. (I should have left it out, probably.)

 

My understanding is that 4k DIs are quite expensive - why would they leave that decision until the end?


  • 0

#4 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 20181 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 18 August 2014 - 12:32 AM

They might have felt at the beginning of production -- or Malick might have felt -- that a straight photochemical finish would be fine, but after a long editing / post-production period, they decided to do some tests for finishing.   Also at some point, there was more "b-roll" footage in the movie that came from digital cameras than ended up in the final cut, but maybe that was a factor in considering a D.I. Maybe more money showed up to finish the post, or maybe enough time had passed that it was clear that a number of screens would be showing the movie digitally.  I don't know, I'm just guessing.


  • 1


Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

Aerial Filmworks

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

Glidecam

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

The Slider

CineLab

CineTape

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Paralinx LLC

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Glidecam

Willys Widgets

CineLab

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Visual Products

Abel Cine

Technodolly

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

Metropolis Post