Jump to content


Photo

Re. Jurassic World


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Bruce Greene

Bruce Greene
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 473 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 June 2015 - 01:31 PM

I saw this film last night on a very nice digital 2d projection. I really enjoyed the film! Well done!

But...I did really sense was that it was captured on film. Usually, I like film, but somehow, it seemed here not to blend perfectly with the digital CG elements and I found it a little bit distracting.

Also, the out of focus background sometimes felt odd to me. Anyone know what lenses were used? Or it could be that these were composite shots that looked so good as to be reality shots, but were actually composites.

It's also possible that "detailing" was added in post, and while giving the film a nice "pop", also enhanced the film elements a bit much.

So, what do you all think?
  • 0


#2 Peter Phillips

Peter Phillips

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts

Posted 17 June 2015 - 03:20 PM

The lenses were primos. There's an article on panavision that I read they detuned the lenses to create a unique look. http://www.panavisio...-jurassic-world


  • 0

#3 Bruce Greene

Bruce Greene
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 473 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 June 2015 - 03:31 PM

Thanks for the link to the article Peter. Interesting.

The article talked about adding an element to the lens to reduce contrast and introduce imperfections. What's interesting, is in the end, the final rendering of the movie is rather more high contrast than is common today. It had a lot of punch, and a little bit of crushed shadows. Much like looking at an optical film print.

It's possible that I've grown so used to the look of the Zeiss lenses, that Panavision Primo lenses look "different" to me also:)
  • 0

#4 Kenny N Suleimanagich

Kenny N Suleimanagich
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 900 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York

Posted 17 June 2015 - 03:33 PM

So funny, to say they "conceived" 2.00:1. Would love to hear Storaro's thoughts on that! 


  • 0

#5 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3542 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 June 2015 - 06:33 PM

I really enjoyed the film as well. No real story to speak of, but it was a lot of fun. I'm kind at a point where if there is a flying person in the movie, I'm kinda not interested in seeing it. 

 

What bothered me the most about the film cinematically was the over use of 5219 35mm for interiors. It creates really grainy out of focus areas in the background which don't fit in well with the 5207 which is what most people use to shoot exteriors. Plus once you scan to digital, all of the film grain turns to digital noise, making the grain in the background stand out even more. I know filmmakers want to light less, making things look more realistic, but sometimes it's better to reduce artifacts and grain so it's not distracting. I don't know what prevented them from shooting the whole film on 65mm since they already had the cameras and shot quite a bit of film. 


  • 0

#6 Tim Tyler

Tim Tyler

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1290 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Olympia, WA (US)

Posted 17 June 2015 - 06:44 PM

I've been a fan of Univisium for a long time. I actually developed a web site for Storaro years ago but he sort of gave up on promoting it a few years later. To me, the 2:1 ratio is very natural.

 

I thought that Jurassic World looked and felt a lot like Spielberg's earlier films. The choice of camera angles and much of the blocking made me think Spielberg had strong input during storyboarding. On the other hand, the close-ups seemed to be over-lit and too flat in my opinion. especially during the first half of the film.

 

I couldn't help seeing Chris Pratt as Indiana Jones though. Kept wishing for more wise cracks.


  • 0

#7 Miguel Angel

Miguel Angel
  • Sustaining Members
  • 751 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Spain / Ireland / South Africa

Posted 17 June 2015 - 08:33 PM

I love Univisium, I had the opportunity to attend to a Storaro's talk here in Dublin and it was amazing listening to him talking about Univisium. 

 

It is a pity that he actually gave up on promoting it tho :( 

 

On the other hand, it seems to me that we are going to have dinosaurs for ages! 

 

http://www.telegraph...office-records/

 

Have a good day.


  • 0

#8 Don Norman

Don Norman

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Digital Image Technician

Posted 21 June 2015 - 01:11 AM

I noticed that the younger of the two nephews of Bryce Dallas Howard was shooting with a Holga or Diana medium format film camera and that he had two different film cameras on a shelf in his bedroom. Also with the way he was taking pictures, the results would have been pretty bad because of careless framing and not really making an effort to hold the camera steady.

I thought the movie looked good but you couldn't really tell that some sequences were shot in 65mm. All the formats - 35mm spherical, 65mm, and Red Dragon cut together very well.
  • 0


Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

Visual Products

Tai Audio

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

Ritter Battery

The Slider

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

rebotnix Technologies

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

Ritter Battery

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Glidecam

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

CineTape

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

Visual Products