FilmMan Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 I'm a geek inside and out. I want to see this movie and analyze the footage (with my defective eyes) with respect to the Arri Alexa 65. Probably take in this move within the week. If anyone goes to the movie, please respond on your thoughts on the image, ............and the movie. Cheers.According to Imdb:Arri Alexa 65, Hasselblad Prime 65 LensesArri Alexa XT (visual effects plates)Arri Alexa XT M (aerial shots)Arriflex 235, Panavision B-, C-, E- and G-Series LensesArriflex 435, Panavision Primo, B-, C-, E-, G-Series, ATZ and AWZ2 LensesPanavision Panaflex Lightweight, Panavision B-, C-, E- and G-Series LensesPanavision Panaflex Millennium XL2, Panavision Primo, B-, C-, E-, G-Series, ATZ and AWZ2 Lenses odie 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odie Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Kodak Motion Picture Film | Facebook Tom behind the wheel.. FilmMan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Rogue, aside from an underwater scene, was shot on KODAK VISION3 200T Color Negative Film 5213 and KODAK VISION3 500T Color Negatives Film 5219 with Panavision equipment and lenses. In an interview with HDVideoPro, Elswit told Ian Blair that "we didn't consider going digital, as neither Tom nor Chris really like the look. You can shoot digital and find a LUT that will mimic the film look, but they both wanted the real film look. And Tom just doesn't like the way digital capture looks, even when it's manipulated.“Shooting film also had the benefit of making post ‘far quicker,’” the DP related during the same interview. "It was originally scheduled for a Christmas release, and now it's a summer release. And, in a way, it's easier to find the look of the movie if you shot film initially. It's less labor-intensive in post."Read more: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Publications/InCamera/Sections/The_StoryBoard/Film_Part_of_the_Mission_Impossible_Dream_Team.htm#ixzz3hVWUn7og Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FilmMan Posted July 31, 2015 Author Share Posted July 31, 2015 Odie, good find. Thanks.Ebrahim, good post. Cheers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 I would love to watch any film shot on the Alexa 65 system entirely, in a cinema house in 4K projection, just to see the quality not even the story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrooklynDan Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 I just watched Rogue Nation and studied the underwater scene in particular. Honestly, it didn't stand out to me as looking different from the rest of the movie. The liquid between the lens and the actor takes the edge off the sharpness, the scene is clearly heavily augmented with CGI, and also all the bokeh is elliptical, like in the rest of the movie. They probably did this in post in order to match the rest of the film.That said, this movie is like porn for anamorphic lovers. Every shot is dripping with stunning oval bokeh, night scenes are shot with achingly shallow focus, crisp blue flares accentuate the action scenes, and much of the camerawork is very wide-angle (in the 30mm range), showing off a touch of barrel distortion. It really goes all the way with the look while using the real creme de la creme of Panavision glass. I loved it just for that reason. Also, Tom Cruise runs really fast in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrad Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 Sounds like amazing Elswitt stuff, BrooklynDan...that was a great mini-review. Definitely going to check it out now! For the technical aspects, but also to have fun watching Tom Cruise running really fast and shooting people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odie Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Rogue, aside from an underwater scene, was shot on KODAK VISION3 200T Color Negative Film 5213 and KODAK VISION3 500T Color Negatives Film 5219 with Panavision equipment and lenses. In an interview with HDVideoPro, Elswit told Ian Blair that "we didn't consider going digital, as neither Tom nor Chris really like the look. You can shoot digital and find a LUT that will mimic the film look, but they both wanted the real film look. And Tom just doesn't like the way digital capture looks, even when it's manipulated.“Shooting film also had the benefit of making post ‘far quicker,’” the DP related during the same interview. "It was originally scheduled for a Christmas release, and now it's a summer release. And, in a way, it's easier to find the look of the movie if you shot film initially. It's less labor-intensive in post."Read more: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Publications/InCamera/Sections/The_StoryBoard/Film_Part_of_the_Mission_Impossible_Dream_Team.htm#ixzz3hVWUn7ogwhat I'm learning here in LA from Producers and Post houses is besides saving time in Post..your saving on the obvious costs of post and camera rentals...making working with kodak a cheaper option than alexa..etc..(i will post in the future how the producers are saving money and working on film ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FilmMan Posted August 2, 2015 Author Share Posted August 2, 2015 Interesting how the quest to replicate film through digital has driven costs and time to new heights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Members Mattias Burling Posted August 2, 2015 Super Members Share Posted August 2, 2015 Not to mention prices on cameras. The latest and greatest people are talking about is $3000.If one instead where to keep the current camera. That $3000 would give a K3 plus 40 rolls of bought, developed and scanned 16mm Kodak Vision. IF you buy them 4 at a time. Buy 40 at once and you get it much cheaper. Then one can use the "old" camera for youtube, gigs and what not. And shoot that special project, short film, sisters wedding or what have you on actual film. That was atleast my thinking when the a7rii was announced. I thought "man $3000, I might as well start to shoot film". That also helped me to decide when needing a camcorder. No need for it to be cinematic or "film look". The film has plenty of that I'm waiting on the first batch from the labb. After that there will be some videos including a guide on how to shot film for free, yes free. Liam and Nikkor 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBounce Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Not to mention prices on cameras. The latest and greatest people are talking about is $3000.If one instead where to keep the current camera. That $3000 would give a K3 plus 40 rolls of bought, developed and scanned 16mm Kodak Vision. IF you buy them 4 at a time. Buy 40 at once and you get it much cheaper. Then one can use the "old" camera for youtube, gigs and what not. And shoot that special project, short film, sisters wedding or what have you on actual film. That was atleast my thinking when the a7rii was announced. I thought "man $3000, I might as well start to shoot film". That also helped me to decide when needing a camcorder. No need for it to be cinematic or "film look". The film has plenty of that I'm waiting on the first batch from the labb. After that there will be some videos including a guide on how to shot film for free, yes free. So what is the later and greatest in film cameras? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Members Mattias Burling Posted August 2, 2015 Super Members Share Posted August 2, 2015 So what is the later and greatest in film cameras? no idea, I would guess Aaton or Arri but that's a bit much for owning imo.that's like buying a C500 in the Digital world. Would probably be atleast $2000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_David Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 Shooting film on a sub 100k budget is nore expensive than digital. On a 40 million dollar or higher budget its not that big of a deal. The costs are from labor etc. But elswitt shot alexa on nightcrawler to get the stop he needed. I just sold my srii. Processing film is pricey. It costs about 800 dollars for every 10 minutes you shoot once all is said and done. I usually shoot about 30 to 40 minutes a day on a film. Maybe you can get down to 15 minutes. But a 3 day shoot thats 4 grand to shoot film. Shooting digital would be like 400 bucks for the hard drives. You could then spend the extra 3 grand on an editor and colorist. But yes something to look into. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FilmMan Posted August 10, 2015 Author Share Posted August 10, 2015 Gees, almost forgot to reply after seeing Rogue Nation last week. I thought the movie was good. Same recipe. Enjoyed the Opera scene and the motorcycle chase scene. Perhaps Cruise likes to be shot on film due to the film grain hiding any facial blemishes and aging? Just kidding. Being shot on film does instill a certain feel to the whole movie. Cruise did earn his money hanging on the side of a plane. Would I hang on the side of a plane for his paycheck? Definitely... if the plane was on the ground. I'd do the CGI green screen rather than be strapped in and hanging on for my dear life. My luck a seagull would either excrete on me or ram into me. If a bird did ram into Cruise, his goose would have been cooked. KFC tonight? Cheers.http://www.cinemablend.com/new/How-Tom-Cruise-Did-Insane-Plane-Stunt-Mission-Impossible-Rogue-Nation-70462.html vaga 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.