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
  • 19640 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
  • 19640 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

CineLab

The Slider

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Aerial Filmworks

FJS International, LLC

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

CineTape

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Wooden Camera

Visual Products

Rig Wheels Passport

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

CineLab

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

The Slider

Ritter Battery

Glidecam

Wooden Camera

Broadcast Solutions Inc

FJS International, LLC

CineTape

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Willys Widgets

Aerial Filmworks

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

Abel Cine