[luca_frontino]

I saw the trailer and, while IMDB says that this film is shot in Panavision anamorphic, there are none of any typical distorsion such as horizontal lens flare, vertical squeeze of out of focus objects and ovalization.

To me, it looks like a Super35 shooting.

Am I wrong?

 

[MovieSwede]

Some of the movie is shoot on IMAX so thoose scenes are shoot on Spherical lenses just as Super35.


As for the trailer, what format/resolution did you watch it on?

 

[Lee Stewart]

Here is a list of the cameras used:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/technical

 

[luca_frontino]



Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede /forum/post/14285266


Some of the movie is shoot on IMAX so thoose scenes are shoot on Spherical lenses just as Super35.


As for the trailer, what format/resolution did you watch it on?

I've watched the 1080p apple trailer.

Really comfortable.

BTW, the IMAX scenes are just a few and I don't think the whole trailer is made of those.

 

[luca_frontino]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/14285659


Here is a list of the cameras used:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/technical

I saw that page previously, but I want to know, based on a screening of the actual footage, if that film has been really shot with anamorphic lenses.

If yes, how did they achieved an image look identical to the spherical lens quality?

 

[MovieSwede]



Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino /forum/post/14291564


I saw that page previously, but I want to know, based on a screening of the actual footage, if that film has been really shot with anamorphic lenses.

If yes, how did they achieved an image look identical to the spherical lens quality?

Sharpening filters, contrastadjustments.


As for vertical squeeze, it should also be an effect of focal length.


And


Horisontal lensflare doesnt happen all the time, especially if you are shooting in a controlled enviroment.


Wait until the we can see the entire movie, and it will be clear what is what.

 

[Lee Stewart]



Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino /forum/post/14291564


I saw that page previously, but I want to know, based on a screening of the actual footage, if that film has been really shot with anamorphic lenses.

If yes, how did they achieved an image look identical to the spherical lens quality?

It's called cropping:

 

[luca_frontino]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/14292039


It's called cropping:

What?

I'm not talking about the aspect ratio. The IMAX scenes are just a few.

I saw the trailer and the picture doesn't look absolutely as an anamorphic feature.

 

[phansson]

If you would like to get a sneek peek of how the movie will look, the first six minutes of "TDK" is on the new Blu Ray release. I have watched it twice on my small tv (50" 1080p plasma). It is in 16x9 and has no kind of distortion or squeezing effect.


I don't know what cameras were used for those scenes but they look incredible.

 

[Lee Stewart]



Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino /forum/post/14292634


What?

I'm not talking about the aspect ratio. The IMAX scenes are just a few.

I saw the trailer and the picture doesn't look absolutely as an anamorphic feature.

I am not understanding what you mean by that.

 

[MovieSwede]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/14293315


I am not understanding what you mean by that.

Anamorphic has certain issues that makes it look different then a movie shoot on Super35. Despite both having the same aspect ratio.

 

[Lee Stewart]



Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede /forum/post/14293415


Anamorphic has certain issues that makes it look different then a movie shoot on Super35. Despite both having the same aspect ratio.

So you are saying that IMDB is wrong?


They are the ones saying it is anamorphic.


So please explain - from the link . . .


Where it says; "Digital intermediate - IMAX version"


What does that mean?

 

[MovieSwede]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/14293972


So you are saying that IMDB is wrong?


They are the ones saying it is anamorphic.


So please explain - from the link . . .


Where it says; "Digital intermediate - IMAX version"


What does that mean?

IMDB is right.


It was shoot on Anamorphic lensed 35, and some scenes were shoot on Spherical lensed IMAX.


But the poster thinks the footage look like Spherical lensed all the way.



As for "Digital intermediate - IMAX version" is that they have used a digital intermediate for the IMAX version, but not for the theatrical version. So the IMAX scenes needs to be converted to Anamorphic 35 to be in the negative 35mm cut.

 

[luca_frontino]



Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede /forum/post/14293415


Anamorphic has certain issues that makes it look different then a movie shoot on Super35. Despite both having the same aspect ratio.

Exactly. Like these: look at the lens flare.

 

[MovieSwede]



Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino /forum/post/14294021


Exactly. Like these: look at the lens flare.

It also depends on how bright light you have in screen. In many cases U dim the lights thats in the screen to avoid them standout in that way.


But in Transformers they use this in a creative way.

 

[luca_frontino]



Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede /forum/post/14294086


It also depends on how bright light you have in screen. In many cases U dim the lights thats in the screen to avoid them standout in that way.


But in Transformers they use this in a creative way.

How about the final show down on the street between Bats and Joker?

There are many lights.

Also in the trailer there are some car lights and the horizontal lens flare never show up.

The Bat-pod has lights also. No lens flare either.

 

[MovieSwede]



Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino /forum/post/14294207


How about the final show down on the street between Bats and Joker?

There are many lights.

Also in the trailer there are some car lights and the horizontal lens flare never show up.

The Bat-pod has lights also. No lens flare either.

I can only see two reasons,


one is that they have dimmed lights, or that the lights doesnt shine in the angle that makes the lights standout in the same way.


Imagine you see someone with a flashlight at night, its just under certain angles the lights gets really bright.


But you should really PM Cam Man on this.

 

[Lee Stewart]

luca_frontino:


Do you believe that because you see lens flare than the image was shot with anamorphic lenses?


That isn't the case.


Here is an image from Blade Runner - a 2.35 Panavision film:

See the lens flare?


The shot you are looking at has an Aspect ration of 2.35 like the rest of the film . . .


But notice that the flare is round. That won't happen if you use an anamorphic lens. It would be eliptical (egg shaped)


The shot you are looking at was filmed using a 65mm camera and film then cropped from 2.20 to 2.35.

 

[luca_frontino]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart /forum/post/14294859


luca_frontino:


Do you believe that because you see lens flare than the image was shot with anamorphic lenses?

Well... the horizontal lens flare can be simulated digitally.

But the geometric ovalization, the blue tint during night scenes and the vertical squeeze of out of focus subjects, assures me that Transformers has been shot in anamorphic, while The Dark Knight looks more as a Super35 feature.

 

[Lee Stewart]



Quote:
Originally Posted by luca_frontino /forum/post/14294917


Well... the horizontal lens flare can be simulated digitally.

But the geometric ovalization, the blue tint during night scenes and the vertical squeeze of out of focus subjects, assures me that Transformers has been shot in anamorphic, while The Dark Knight looks more as a Super35 feature.

Can you post a couple of screen shots that show an example of what you are talking about?


Or a link with a video in it?