Steven Spielberg & Martin Scorsese: the joy of celluloid

AgX

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
29,973
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
Neither Dean, nor Spielberg, nor Scorsese work with celluloid...
 

CGW

Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
2,896
Format
Medium Format
Already running here. Can we get these merged?

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
 

bbuszard

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
11
Format
4x5 Format
The great surprise to me is the apparent eloquence and thoughtfulness of Keanu Reeves. Whoda thunk?
 

Newt_on_Swings

Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Messages
2,147
Location
NYC
Format
Multi Format
+1 for Keanu Reeves

also this gem:

"My greatest fear is that as a discarded medium and corporate outcast, analogue will no longer be essential to visual education. Many young people will not know the difference between hand and button, they will only know the button; and their use of technology will be constricted by their ignorance of hand work. They will not perceive the qualities of optical photography because their eyes will only know digital imagery" Mitch Epstein
 

AgX

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
29,973
Location
Germany
Format
Multi Format
Aristophanes,

I tried to hint in my remark not at film as such but at the material said to be used.
Celluloid has long gone as material for cine-camera- as well as for cine-print-film. I found it funny that such a long gone material is still used by the press as synomyn for film, when most young people even don't have any idea what perforated 35mm film is for.

Well, I had been grumbling...
 

Steve Smith

Member
Joined
May 3, 2006
Messages
9,109
Location
Ryde, Isle o
Format
Medium Format
AgX said:
I tried to hint in my remark not at film as such but at the material said to be used.
Celluloid has long gone as material for cine-camera- as well as for cine-print-film.
Click to expand...

I don't have any real facts but I do remember reading that the material used for movie camera film was not the same as that used for still cameras. Something to do with a weaker material being used so that in the event of a jam, the film was damaged rather than the delicate transport mechanism.


Steve.
 

Thomas Bertilsson

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Messages
15,708
Location
Switzerland
Format
Multi Format
Excellent read. Thanks, Tom! I took the liberty of posting this at Google+.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,411
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
ooze said:
Keanu Reeves, indeed, has expressed himself most eloquently!
Click to expand...

Not the least bit surprised. He is, after all, Canadian:munch:
 

MDR

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Messages
1,402
Location
Austria
Format
Multi Format
Steve The average Motion Picture Film and Still Photography Film has an acetate base or an Estar base. Films produced by Agfa-Gevaert use a Polyester base.
Motion Picture film have a remjet backing, still films don't.There are some other differences as well but the base material is pretty much the same.

Dominik
 

waynecrider

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 8, 2003
Messages
2,562
Location
Georgia
Format
35mm
Eric Rose said:
None of the big movie camera manufacturers are making film cameras anymore.
Click to expand...

Panavision and Arri makes 35mm and 65mm film cameras. They also make digital cameras. Check the Spotlight tab at Panavision for movies done recently with the XL2 film camera.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MDR

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Messages
1,402
Location
Austria
Format
Multi Format
Wayne and Agx Panavision and Arri stopped making Analogue Movie cameras last year or early this year. Aaton stopped making classic filmcameras just a short time ago. What they sell is remaining stock, the market (rental houses) are currently saturated with classic movie cameras and a lot of budget minded Indie Filmakers switched to Red or the Alexa in a New York minute, a stupid move if you ask me, but on the other hand pretty much the only filmmakers still shooting in Anamorphic Widescreen are the indie Filmmakers and a few A-List directors. The US TV is partly to blame all US TV series went digital to cut costs (had to thanks to the recent strikes writers and actors) this move has hurt the classic moviemaking industry more than you can imagine e.g.CSI (used to shot on 3perf 35mm) one of the last series to use film went digital 2 seasons ago.

Dominik
 
OP
OP

Toffle

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
1,930
Location
Point Pelee,
Format
Multi Format
MDR said:
pretty much the only filmmakers still shooting in Anamorphic Widescreen are the indie Filmmakers and a few A-List directors.
Dominik
Click to expand...

Ya, a pretty unsavory group. (but I get your point)
 

Ross Chambers

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2004
Messages
701
Location
Blue Mountai
Format
Multi Format
In my ideal world film origination and digital post would be the choice. During my time as film and sound editor and post production supervisor ensuring that a show print was free from dust printed in, scratches and other abrasions was a very full time job. Opticals (all those fades, dissolves, super titles and other everyday devices) were slow, expensive and not always exactly what the director wanted, thus sent back to the lab for more attempts. More exotic effects were the field of rare and very expensive technicians. Most of these effects are desk top procedures now and offer immediate results for approval.

It has to then become a saving to originate digitally.

"Vera Drake" may have been shot on 16mm, I do wonder how the post was done. It was always a huge compromise to work with 16mm magnetic film, poor frequency response and almost impossible to "fit" looped dialogue. 35mm magnetic film allowed the editor to adjust in increments of 1/96th of a second, 16mm 1/24th. I recall seeing a BBC feature film shot in 16mm and blown up for cinemas where the theatre had a sign up apologising for the sync of some of the dialogue.

These days (of retirement) I thoroughly enjoy the clean, unscratched, non weaving (watch a film print closely, they all weave to some degree) projected image of digital projection.
 

MDR

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Messages
1,402
Location
Austria
Format
Multi Format
Ross Leaving las Vegas was shot in Super 16mm, so was Black Swan. Leaving las Vegas used an optical blow up to 35mm 1.85 whereas Black Swan went the digital route. I personally prefer the look of Leaving Las Vegas. The sound has nothing to do with the originating camera format with one exception 65mm (still one of the best sounds and definetely best picture) that uses a 6 Channel magnetic Soundtrack. Bad sound is usually a product of ultra low budget or Dogma films, good sound needs a good Sound editor and good ADR both things an ultra low budget movie can't afford. Another point is the look of digital vs Analoge projection digital production rarely reaches 2K whereas 35mm Optical is between 3.2 to 4k Imax upt to 12K so you have a definete loss of digital and quality with digital projection but of course no scratches or dirt.

Dominik
 

Ross Chambers

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2004
Messages
701
Location
Blue Mountai
Format
Multi Format
Dominik said: "The sound has nothing to do with the originating camera format"

Well apart from Tacita Dean at the Tate 16mm is pretty much dead (to her regret) but as a rule cutting 16mm involved 16mm work print and 16mm mag sound for picture and sound post.

Protools etc. became the weapon of choice for sound post quite a few years ago and the film gauge was indeed not relevant , I'm being a boring old chap remembering the analogue days. A young assistant on one Protools lay had an illuminating moment when we had cause to refer to the 35mm cutting copy and I spoke of frames (also found in Protools' nomenclature) He had never seen a strip of film and the frames thereon.
Suddenly it all made sense to him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…