my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » Leaders on 'Ocean's Thirteen' (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Leaders on 'Ocean's Thirteen' Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 07-08-2007 11:54 AM                     If anybody has this film at the moment look at the very small text printed on three frames between '9' and '8' on the Academy leaders; it's rather interesting, and I've never seen anything similar on any other film. Basically, it tells you what the film went through between the original camera, and the print, or digital release copy.  |  IP: Logged Jon P. Inghram Expert Film Handler Posts: 124 From: Wichita, KS USA Registered: Jan 2007 posted 07-08-2007 01:38 PM                     How'd you notice that? I gave up trying to read it with my naked eyes and just used my digital camera.  |  IP: Logged Tim Reed Better Projection Pays Posts: 5246 From: Northampton, PA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 07-08-2007 05:08 PM                       As with the other O13 thread, please post the picture!  |  IP: Logged Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 07-08-2007 05:23 PM                     I've actually borrowed the leader from one of the reels for a couple of days, but for the last few weeks I haven't been able to use my main computer with the scanners on it, as my landlord's son is using it to create his magnum opus in Final Cut Pro. He's encoding it tonight, to produce a DVD tomorrow morning, so I'll try to scan the leader when I get home tomorrow evening.  |  IP: Logged Jon P. Inghram Expert Film Handler Posts: 124 From: Wichita, KS USA Registered: Jan 2007 posted 07-09-2007 12:09 AM                     I got some pictures using my digital camera:  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 07-09-2007 02:36 AM                     Wow. Hats off, Larry & Co! Everyone should do this! [curious that it claims the film-outs were targetted for 2383 instead of 2393...hmm, reading the 2393 datasheet, I guess they're both 1.09/1.06/1.03. Funny, I'd always assumed there was some change necessary beyond just threading up the other stock. (Also, the 2393 datasheet still mentions Process ECP-2B, instead of ECP-2D...ah well) It's also great to hear that there were multiple film-out INs. That suggests that every (domestic) print is only 2 generations from the DI, which is about all you could ask for. Makes you wonder if there were any film-out release prints ("EK"?)...] --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Tim Reed Better Projection Pays Posts: 5246 From: Northampton, PA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 07-09-2007 08:57 PM                       Way cool! Thanks for the pictures, Jon!  |  IP: Logged Mark Escorcia Film Handler Posts: 5 From: West Babylon, NY, USA Registered: Mar 2002 posted 07-10-2007 11:36 PM                        It's fun to learn something new every day...  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-11-2007 02:06 PM                        That's cool. I'd like to show that to all the people who can't understand why it costs a lot to make a movie.  |  IP: Logged Michael Brown Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1522 From: Bradford, England Registered: May 2001 posted 07-11-2007 04:31 PM                     Super 35 and Digital Intermediates , I'm sure Henri Chrétien is rolling in his grave.  |  IP: Logged Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 07-12-2007 04:00 AM                     There is a vast difference between the best and the worst of digital intermediates. Going via a DI doesn't make something either good or bad.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 07-12-2007 06:50 AM                     I dunno about that Stephen...I've been really put off by DIs...they really seem to put the image though a bottleneck under close observation. Then again, O13 was shot Super-35 which is also a huge (or should I say tiny) bottle neck of its own. I found the grains rather large and easily observable in this film. What is the height in the aperture? .394"? or so...that is practically shooting on 16mm. I don't know why there is this fascination with Super-35...there is nothing super about it except the grain size. If they want spherical lenses with the scope ratio, they need to see if they can handle 65mm.  |  IP: Logged Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 07-12-2007 07:36 AM                     I would say that most of the DI films I see don't look very impressive, but a few do, therefore it's possible to make a good DI. I think most of the good ones I have seen have been done by Technicolor.  |  IP: Logged Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-12-2007 07:52 AM                        The first one (the 2001 remake) was grainy as well. I belive that I read somewhere that this was an intentional artistic choice, and not so much an artifact of the process. The negative was probably slightly under-exposed (which gives more grain). Many DPs like to over-expose 5218 by 1/2 or 2/3 of a stop to reduce grain and the results look much better. Super-35 keeps getting better, but I agree that the format is sub-standard for feature work (it probably makes good sense for material that will only end up on television and video, though). I talked with a DP about it a year or so ago, and it seems that the reasons for using it are basically that spherical lenses are smaller and lighter (thus, easier to work with in tight spaces and for handheld and steadicam work), and are more available and cheaper to rent. Also it makes some CGI work easier. Agreed that DIs are generally unimpressive, but that there will be a good one every so often. Spider-Man 2 (4k DI) looked great and Astronaut Farmer (4k scan, 2k output) also looked quite good. Personally, I think that there is a certain amount of "magic" in an optical print that doesn't exist in a DI print, but I can't really articulate what it is or why it appeals to me.  |  IP: Logged Tim Reed Better Projection Pays Posts: 5246 From: Northampton, PA Registered: Sep 1999 posted 07-12-2007 11:37 AM                       FWIW, I can't stand that hard, grainy, desaturated look in the new "Die Hard". What's up with that? It ruined the show for me.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.