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
  • 287 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
  • 18789 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
  • 287 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
  • 18789 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


The Slider

Pro 8mm

CineTape

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

Zylight

Tai Audio

Technodolly

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

Zylight

Technodolly

Tai Audio

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

Pro 8mm