"Club Penton" - Ask questions to Hollywood insider "Penton-Man"

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I think all presentations are a bit “rehearsed”....no? Additionally, after his short spiel, Buzz opened it up to the audience for any questions…of which were completely spontaneous.

Yeah, wasn't being snarky, just that it felt like he was selling something, which, well, he was...

It's entirely possible that you've been in Hollywood too long to notice the tonal shift.

The issue, here, I think is a greater depth of composition (touched on by what he was saying), rather than simply depth of field. It's pretty easy in brightly lit video to give essentially complete focus throughout the field, but to think in terms of compositional elements (one close, one far away), and deal with the intricacies of where to focus your eyes rather than just the lens, well... it's all a big kettle of fish, ain't it.

And, dare I say, I don't think the shot at 1:55 of the Kane clip would have been made better with the table somehow looming out of the screen at you, but, yeah. Point taken.

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I really hope you’re not referring to that couple discussing things in the background at about the 6 min. mark of the clip.

No, no, no. I thought at first it was Sir Howard talking to somebody, but I haven't gone back to watch. No, I was talking about the people acting out the scene for the 3D camera, the pretty couple that look like those that show up on Avia or the like to help you calibrate your set.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Toland's use of wide angle lenses (24mm.) with 2D (like in Citizen Kane http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tt840nlog0 )
- would be more contusive to 3D filmmaking than blurry backgrounds due to long lenses.

That's a fact.

No, it's still an opinion. You can objectively contrast z-plane dynamics across the focussed depth-of-field all day long, but if that's your aim, you may as well just measure the lenses themselves. You're still working in an artistic medium and that means a plurality of conceptual objectives, for a product which, in interpretation, is subjective.

[Penton-Man]

^

I was speaking in terms of generalization, I didn’t mean that a 3D motion picture should necessarily be shot entirely with wide angle lenses. The fact is, most good 3D is overwhelmingly, predominately shot today with short fixed lenses and some inexperienced 3D filmmakers may not know that fact, and thusly may, unknowingly, try to shoot their films in 3D with the same techniques (long lenses, zoom lenses) as they have done with their 2D work in the past.

You’re the betting guy. Care to bet this time on what will be the most commonly used, i.e. general purpose Prime lens by Bob Richardson on Marty’s Hugo Cabret?...I’m referring to focal length.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I was speaking in terms of generalization, I didn’t mean that a 3D motion picture should necessarily be shot entirely with wide angle lenses.

Yes, I know you were and perhaps I was being extra-vigilant/pedantic, but I like to reinforce my opinion that 3D cinematography is still in its relative infancy as a broadly-popular medium. The cinematic vocabulary being developed today is very focused on clarity, immediate conceptual translation and 'comfort' for the 2D-familiar (the qualities always developed first in any 'new' medium). If 3D really "sticks", the vocabulary will evolve radically with the experimentation of the next couple of generations of artists. As you know, what is "best practices" today is "simple", "staid" and "pedestrian" tomorrow. We just can't get there until 3D convention is established in the audience.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

You’re the betting guy. Care to bet this time on what will be the most commonly used, i.e. general purpose Prime lens by Rob Richardson on Marty’s Hugo Cabret?...I’m referring to focal length.

Intriguing question... I'll have to think about that one a bit (no Googling, I promise!). I was under the impression they were already shooting, though. Maybe just tests.

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

You’re the betting guy. Care to bet this time on what will be the most commonly used, i.e. general purpose Prime lens by Rob Richardson on Marty’s Hugo Cabret?...I’m referring to focal length.

No googling, but didn't they shoot Avatar with a 35mm and a 100ish? (101mm I think?)

Since a 35mm makes for a lovely crop sensor 50mm prime, I'd guess, uh, 35mm?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Intriguing question... I'll have to think about that one a bit (no Googling, I promise!). I was under the impression they were already shooting, though. Maybe just tests.

I doubt Googling will help you with that. Geez Doc, you’re breaking the budget of the production while you’re thinking about it.

Let me pose to you an easier question which you may not be so reluctant to answer and which googling will most likely be of service.

What is the first movie ever to be broadcast on television in 3D?.
And once you’ve found the answer, would you and others enjoy seeing it remastered in modern 3D (not viewing with thee old red/green glasses) on Blu-ray 3D at the appropriate time of year?

[Penton-Man]

Shark, interesting tidbit from The International Film Festival of the Art of Cinematography…known at the Plus Camerimage.

Despite Inception being among one of the main competitors –
http://www.pluscamerimage.pl/index.p...3d0bde7e37eeab

In the end, it failed to win the Gold, Silver or even Bronze Frog awards (i.e. 1st place, 2nd place, or 3rd place). Granted the jury was small but, it does make you wonder about the announced upcoming American Society of Cinematographers Best Cinematography winner early next year.

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Shark, interesting tidbit from The International Film Festival of the Art of Cinematography…known at the Plus Camerimage.

Despite Inception being among one of the main competitors –
http://www.pluscamerimage.pl/index.p...3d0bde7e37eeab

In the end, it failed to win the Gold, Silver or even Bronze Frog awards (i.e. 1st place, 2nd place, or 3rd place). Granted the jury was small but, it does make you wonder about the announced upcoming American Society of Cinematographers Best Cinematography winner early next year.

Was supposed to see ENTER THE VOID yesterday - they had problems with the key for the digital "print". Entire room of a press screening ended up not being able to see it. Yet again, anti-piracy screws those that actually are supposed to be viewing the flick. BLACK SWAN, ANOTHER YEAR, and 127 HOURS are spectacularly good films... BURIED I hear is far less of a film, and I missed seeing SILENT SOULS and VENICE.

Meanwhile, I DO get to see 2001 in a brand new 70mm print tomorrow, very excited about that. Douglas Trumbull's in town, and he gave a VERY excellent talk tonight about making of the film, the state of cinema, etc. Even dropped how pissed off he is at IMAX for diluting their presentation (and he, a former board member no less, is damn right, they've finally had the balls to put in Faux-MAX in the AMCs here, the home town of that format).

What =gutted= me was learning that the doc I thought he was working on for the forthcoming BD rerelease (http://douglastrumbull.com/videos, 2nd one down) was NOT picked up by Warner. They apparently even found pristine YCM seps, and the full 17 minutes that was excised (including the intros by the likes of Margaret Mead, discussing the future of humanity). He was going to interview more than 40 living members of the production crew and cast, and they refused to greenlight it. FOR SHAME, this could easily have bested even the more compelling so-called "extras", and it's exactly the type of content that Warner, when done right, excels at.

Anyhoo, tomorrow he's giving a couple more talks, the last one on the making of BLADE RUNNER, with a screening to follow.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

What =gutted= me was learning that the doc I thought he was working on for the forthcoming BD rerelease (http://douglastrumbull.com/videos, 2nd one down) was NOT picked up by Warner. They apparently even found pristine YCM seps, and the full 17 minutes that was excised (including the intros by the likes of Margaret Mead, discussing the future of humanity). He was going to interview more than 40 living members of the production crew and cast, and they refused to greenlight it. FOR SHAME, this could easily have bested even the more compelling so-called "extras", and it's exactly the type of content that Warner, when done right, excels at.

How did you not hear about that cancellation earlier, shark?

Meanwhile, I'm still trying to find out if it means the plans for the set itself have been shelved.

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Anyhoo, tomorrow he's giving a couple more talks, the last one on the making of BLADE RUNNER, with a screening to follow.

Holy SNAP! Ooooooooooooh, what I'd give to be there!

Shark, if you don't attend this for me and then send me a 20-page report, you're a dick.

About a dozen-and-a-half years ago, I had a roommate who had visited Trumbull's house a number of times as a child and vividly remembers sitting on the Tyrell pyramid model in his garage. Perhaps the closest I've been to divinity.

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

How did you not hear about that cancellation earlier, shark?

The internet is a big place, what can I say... It wasn't even canceled, it was just never greenlit. That vid on his site was a pitch, and I read it as a commercial for a work in progress.

Holy SNAP! Ooooooooooooh, what I'd give to be there!

Book a flight, bro.

His last slide of the 2001 presentation was of the space station ring model, shot by some guy in England 10 years ago outside a wrecking yard. The photographer didn't bother rescuing it, and it has since been lost. That, apparently, is the last site any of the production models.

I'm going to try and nail him down on this "coffee table book" about 2001 using the Archives materials - TASCHEN would be the obvious choice, but if he is doing it independently like the RECORDING THE BEATLES it wouldn't be so bad either. Some of the photos were just sick awesome.

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Meanwhile, I DO get to see 2001 in a brand new 70mm print tomorrow, very excited about that.

Let me know how it looks - the one I saw this year in Oslo was the worst print of the festival, looking flat and soft.

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Oliver K

Let me know how it looks - the one I saw this year in Oslo was the worst print of the festival, looking flat and soft.

The print was in excellent shape (newly struck, I believe) - the issue is that the screening room, very large for an arthouse, is a "mere" 40ft wide. I sat closer than usual, but it lacked that crazy-widescreen experience that I can only dream about (ie., Cinerama).

That said, the Lightbox venue really does have the most spectacular sound I think I've had the pleasure of experiencing - from Apocalypse Now a month or so back to last night's BLADE RUNNER (a 35mm print of the "definitive", blu-ray cut) it's worth it alone to go to that venue for the sound. The Tympani (timpani) on the 2001 epic intro was spine chilling, really stunning to hear it in that space.

So, yeah, well worth seeing in 70mm, not earthshatteringly different than a very high quality 35mm print on that same screen (you know, kind of like the difference between 720 and 1080 on a 60" set, as opposed to the difference on a 42" set - ie., visible, even if psychosomatically, but minor).

Whatever the source, the real pleasure, again, is just to see the damn thing on a screen, period.

ps. Doc, the Trumbull, part two, was a little less superamazing than day one - he spent a lot of it playing clips from the (fabulous) doc on the BD set. On the first night he played clips from the Cinerama doc on the HOW THE WEST WAS WON, but I found he integrated them better into that presentation. Still very good, but the 2001 was certainly the presentation to see.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Still very good, but the 2001 was certainly the presentation to see.

Yes, he's always had a lot more (and more notably) to say about 2001, for obvious reasons, but Blade Runner is my beautiful #1 (as opposed to 2001, which is only a lowly 'somewhere in the top 20'), so I gotta put the priorities where I gotta put the priorities, you know?

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Yes, he's always had a lot more (and more notably) to say about 2001, for obvious reasons, but Blade Runner is my beautiful #1 (as opposed to 2001, which is only a lowly 'somewhere in the top 20'), so I gotta put the priorities where I gotta put the priorities, you know?

Fair enough.

Here's a video of him:

http://filmfest.ca/2010/12/10/dougla...tiff-lightbox/

[dahoover]

Hey Penton, I searched the thread and I don't think anyone has asked this. I was wondering if you know if Sony is working on a fix for the PIP problem with Sunshine that started with the 3.5 firmware update? The PIP commentary cannot be disabled and plays throughout the movie.

I would really like to watch this movie on bluray but it is not possible now if you are using any Sony bluray player that has been updated to 3.5. I was hoping firmware 3.55 would fix it but it doesn't.

[Oliver K]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

The print was in excellent shape (newly struck, I believe) - the issue is that the screening room, very large for an arthouse, is a "mere" 40ft wide. I sat closer than usual, but it lacked that crazy-widescreen experience that I can only dream about (ie., Cinerama).

That said, the Lightbox venue really does have the most spectacular sound I think I've had the pleasure of experiencing - from Apocalypse Now a month or so back to last night's BLADE RUNNER (a 35mm print of the "definitive", blu-ray cut) it's worth it alone to go to that venue for the sound. The Tympani (timpani) on the 2001 epic intro was spine chilling, really stunning to hear it in that space.

So, yeah, well worth seeing in 70mm, not earthshatteringly different than a very high quality 35mm print on that same screen (you know, kind of like the difference between 720 and 1080 on a 60" set, as opposed to the difference on a 42" set - ie., visible, even if psychosomatically, but minor).

Whatever the source, the real pleasure, again, is just to see the damn thing on a screen, period.

Good to hear - that was definitely not the print that I saw.

Still I gotta tell you that 70mm in good prints is much better compared to 35mm - it is closer to the difference between DVD and Blu-Ray to stay with comparisons in the home theater world!

But you are right about the big screen (and might I add audience) experience - that is a big part of the fun already, perfect quality or not.

[Constitution 101]

Question for Mr. Penton...I got my new TV calibrated recently, and then I went out and bought/watched Baraka. I've never seen anything even close to that picture quality before. Will we start seeing more of this in the future or is it just too impractical for studios? It's a shame if that's the case...

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Speaking of cameras:

http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/28/p...-the-hobbit-t/

But, this motion picture is the first major feature film to shoot in 3D using Red Epics, which, by the way, is in principal photography as we speak….
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0948470/

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by dahoover

Hey Penton, I searched the thread and I don't think anyone has asked this. I was wondering if you know if Sony is working on a fix for the PIP problem with Sunshine that started with the 3.5 firmware update? The PIP commentary cannot be disabled and plays throughout the movie.

I would really like to watch this movie on bluray but it is not possible now if you are using any Sony bluray player that has been updated to 3.5. I was hoping firmware 3.55 would fix it but it doesn't.

Hi dahoover ,
Honestly, I no longer keep up-to-date on the status of such consumer electronics firmware things like I did so in the past….just too much on my plate with my own projects/challenges.

All I can tell you is that they are aware of the situation. Sorry, I can’t be of further assistance at this time.