Jump to content




Photo

Some questions about old effects


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 cole t parzenn

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

Posted 06 November 2014 - 08:21 PM

Why did front screen projection never replace rear screen?

 

How do/did you keep the screen from being washed out by the movie lights?

 

I've read that part of the reason blue screens were used for travelling mattes was that the film recorded blue with the highest fidelity, so its removal left the fewest artifacts. But travelling mattes would have been done with tungsten balanced stocks, so the blue layer would have been the fastest, right? Was I misinformed or do tungsten stocks really record blue with the highest fidelity, because ______?

 

How was this/this done? (One of two "2001" effects, that I don't yet know.)

 

How were the prisms done? (The other "2001" effect.) Also, how was it composited?

 

At what frame rate was this shot at and was the film pushed? (2.5...)

 

How was this done?

 

Many thanks.


  • 0




#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18788 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 06 November 2014 - 11:59 PM

Blue was mainly chosen because it is the farthest color opposite from skin tone. Blue is also one of the sharper layers in color negative, being at the top. Most color negative film was tungsten balanced until the 1990's so it's not like there was much choice, and most sets were lit with tungsten back then. But yes, blue can be somewhat grainy which is one reason why 100 ASA film was preferred for blue screen work and the negative was well-exposed.

http://en.m.wikipedi...on_picture_film
  • 0

#3 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18788 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 07 November 2014 - 12:08 AM

That last shot was from "Blade Runner" -- I believe the landscape miniature (which had the fireballs double-exposed into them by doing a second pass on the miniature but with the lights out and white cards placed behind some of the towers of the model, and then the fireball was projected onto the card) was projected onto a dome to create the fish-eye lens curvature, and then that image was optically printed over the ECU of the eyeball.
  • 0

#4 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18788 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 07 November 2014 - 12:11 AM

The nebulae effects were created in a pan of liquid with eye droppers or syringes injecting other dyes, inks, paints, oils, etc. into the liquid. I don't know if the liquid was front or backlit.
  • 0

#5 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18788 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 07 November 2014 - 12:17 AM

The trippy landscapes were created by making b&w color separations from the color original and then recombining them through incorrect color filters. Hi-con b&w film might have been used for some of the separations. I don't know if any solarizing was done too. Perhaps some switching of elements from positive to negative might have allowed the glowing colors in the black areas.
  • 0

#6 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18788 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 07 November 2014 - 12:20 AM

I'm not at home and can't run to my bookshelf, so I'm just recalling things that I read in places like this:
http://www.cinefex.c...ues/issue85.htm
  • 0

#7 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2182 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 07 November 2014 - 05:04 AM

Camera and front projector are set at 90 degrees to one another looking through a 45-degree mirror so they are on the same axis. The projected image is reflected straight back into the camera lens by a retro-reflective screen material. Stray light from the set reflects off the screen at the angle of incidence, not into the lens, so it doesn't interfere with the front projection. The retro-reflection is many hundreds of times brighter than off-axis light. The actors exactly cover their own shadows.

Agel's book explains it well IIRC.

2001 didn't use any travelling mattes at all. All the mattes were hand-drawn.


Edited by Mark Dunn, 07 November 2014 - 05:09 AM.

  • 0

#8 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2182 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 07 November 2014 - 05:11 AM

I was a bit cryptic-the book is 'The making of Kubrick's 2001' by Jerome Agel.

It seems to be rather expensive now and no, my copy isn't for sale!


Edited by Mark Dunn, 07 November 2014 - 05:14 AM.

  • 0


Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Tai Audio

The Slider

Abel Cine

Ritter Battery

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

Pro 8mm

Rig Wheels Passport

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

Willys Widgets

Zylight

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

Zylight

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

CineLab

Ritter Battery

The Slider

Tai Audio

Willys Widgets

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Glidecam

Pro 8mm