Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Sequences of Inception shot in 65MM

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » Sequences of Inception shot in 65MM

Author

Topic: Sequences of Inception shot in 65MM

Geoff Jones
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 579
From: Broomfield, CO, USA
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 03-26-2010 02:58 PM

http://www.collider.com/2010/03/25/director-christopher-nolan-and-producer-emma-thomas-interview-inception-they-talk-3d-what-kind-of-cameras-they-used-pre-viz-wb-and-a-lot-more/

quote:
Nolan: We shot the film with a mixture of mostly the predominant bulk of the film is anamorphic 35mm, which is the best quality sort of practical format to shoot on by far. We shot key sequences on 65mm, 5 perf not 15 perf, and we shot VistaVision on certain other sequences. So we’ve got a negative - a set of negative - that’s of the highest possible quality except IMAX.

We didn’t feel that we were going to be able to shoot in IMAX because of the size of the cameras because this film given that it deals with a potentially surreal area, the nature of dreams and so forth, I wanted it to be as realistic as possible. Not be bound by the scale of those IMAX cameras, even though I love the format dearly. So we went to the next best thing which was 65mm. So we have the highest quality image of any film that’s being made and that allows us to reformat the film for any distribution form that we’d like to put it in. We’re definitely going to do an IMAX release. We’re excited about doing that and using our original negative 65mm photography to maximize the effect of that release.

3D I think is an interesting development in movies or the resurgence of 3D. It’s something we’re looking at and watching. There are certain limitations of shooting in 3D. You have to shoot on video, which I’m not a fan of. I like shooting on film.

And so then you’re looking at post-conversion processes which are moving forward in very exciting ways. So really, for me, production of a large scale film is all about recording the best, highest quality image possible so that you can then put it in any theatre in the best way possible. And 65mm film, IMAX film, VistaVision, 35mm, that’s the way you do that.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 03-26-2010 07:57 PM

In one of the "insider" threads at Blu-ray.com Inception was a topic of interest on whether parts or the whole of it was being filmed in a large format film process, be it VistaVision, 5/65 or 15/65.

Looking at the first trailer, it seemed obvious to me at least some parts were either 5/65mm or 8/35 based on some shots having an obvious low depth of field AND tell tale optical artifacts of spherical photography. The stuff didn't look like the usual cropped Super35 stuff, but wasn't anamorphic either.

While I applaud Nolan's efforts, it still would be nice if at least a few or more prominent filmmakers could shoot an ENTIRE movie in 5/65 or VistaVision. The technology is there to do it. And the results would pay off well in home formats like Blu-ray. Right now all we seem to get is certain sequences or key shots filmed in 65mm. Not the entire movie.

The banking/spy thriller The International features a few key shots that were originated in 65mm using an Arri765 camera. I think those shots are fairly easy to pick out, even when watching on Blu-ray because the level of intricate detail is unusually high/sharp and the richness of color is noticeably better.

| IP: Logged

Ron Curran
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 504
From: Springwood NSW Australia
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 03-26-2010 09:24 PM

Bobby, you raise some interesting points. According to some directors I have spoken to, depth of field is one reason they choose to film spherical instead of anamorphic. I did think that most modern lenses had reduced that problem. Also, I thought that anamorphic lenses (particularly 2X) produced certain artifacts not evident with spherical lenses.

VistaVision was a favourite of mine but it really became redundant when 5/65 became popular and film stocks improved. The same process with a subtle squeeze (Technirama) makes good sense, though it also gave way to 5/65.

A 5/65 rig, stocks and editing on film would add considerable cost. Anamorphic 35 on superior stocks scanned at 4K is still possibly the best compromise but what about that depth of field issue?

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 03-26-2010 10:12 PM

Even the most modern lenses cannot improve their way out of issues relating to depth of field. Lots of push and pull goes on with regard to how much light is available, how much light the lens can capture and how big an imaging surface that lens must properly expose. Artistic decision is another factor. Anamorphic lenses exaggerate depth of field effects. Sometimes that's a desirable thing if it fits the artistic vision.

Film formats larger than 4/35 are prone to a lower depth of field than 4/35 since their larger imaging areas require more light to gain a proper exposure. If you're shooting in VistaVision or 5/65 you're going to need more light in the scene to shoot at the same aperture setting as 4/35. Or you'll need a lens with much bigger pieces of glass to get a lot more light onto that imaging surface -a costly proposition. Or you'll need must faster film, perhaps with the trade-off of muted color and more noticeable grain. If the image gets too faded and grainy the benefits of shooting in large format are lost. You might as well shoot in 4/35 instead.

In the end anyone shooting large format film in any kind of light challenged environment has to accept low depth of field being part of the deal. The focus puller had better be good.

These days too many movies have too many scenes shot in very dimly lit conditions. It's like the cinematographers are just gambling on making the movie look terrible. This seems really common with a lot of "digital" originated movies. Sorry, but the Panavision Genesis as well as a number of other digital cameras out there produce shitty looking footage when used in poorly lit conditions. It's reminding me of video camera ads ("shoots in as little as zero lux!") touting low light performance. Those ads say absolutely nothing of getting professional quality footage in low light. In the end there is no substitution for good lighting regardless if you're shooting on film or video.

At times low depth of field is a very desirable, artistic looking effect. I think this is as the heart of why DSLR still cameras like the Canon 5D Mark II and 7D are being used to shoot lots of different things such as the opening title sequences of Saturday Night Live and The Tonight Show. Those cameras have some serious drawbacks compared to dedicated video cameras, but their small overall size, giant sized imaging chips and interchangeable lenses open a lot of creative territory -particularly in shooting scenes with very low depth of field. Canon has a few lenses that open up as big as f/1.2. Out of motion picture film cameras and video cameras you might have to shoot in 5/65mm to get a similar low depth of field effect.

| IP: Logged

John Lasher
Master Film Handler

Posts: 493
From: Newark, DE
Registered: Aug 2001

posted 03-26-2010 10:15 PM

quote: Ron Curran
what about that depth of field issue?

use shorter lenses and move the camera closer

| IP: Logged

Ian Parfrey
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1049
From: Imbil Australia 26 deg 27' 42.66" S 152 deg 42' 23.40" E
Registered: Feb 2009

posted 03-26-2010 10:39 PM

..or use faster stock and stop down.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 03-26-2010 11:27 PM

But if there isn't enough light available you can't stop stop down. You're forced to open the aperture and open it even bigger if you're exposing a larger film negative.

Use too fast a film stock and you'll end up with an image showing increased visible grain and lower levels of color, particularly warm colors.

It's funny some of the same rules carry over to digital camera use. Dial the gain up to a higher ISO setting and you'll be steadily increasing noise, decreasing color fidelity and decreasing fine levels of detail. It's amazing what the newest cameras can do at fairly high ISO levels. My Canon EOS 5D Mark II camera still produces decent looking images at ISO 3200. My previous DSLR, a Canon Digital Rebel XTi, didn't produce anything usable past ISO 800.

| IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 03-27-2010 08:06 AM

quote: Ron Curran
VistaVision was a favourite of mine but it really became redundant when 5/65 became popular and film stocks improved. The same process with a subtle squeeze (Technirama) makes good sense, though it also gave way to 5/65.

I agree 100% and it is still in use for some effects work to this day although not as widely as it was in the 80's and the 90's. I still feel that Technirama blown up to 70mm produces far superior results than 65mm photography does. I still have my Vista Vision camera and projector and they're not going anywhere!

Mark

| IP: Logged

Christian Appelt
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 505
From: Frankfurt, Germany
Registered: Dec 2001

posted 03-27-2010 08:22 AM

65mm footage was also shot for Joseph Vilsmair's movie NANGA PARBAT (2010) which tells the story of famous climber Reinhold Messner and how he lost his brother in the 1970 expedition.

Panoramic shots and aerial footage was filmed in 65mm 5-perf using an Arriflex 765 camera. More about the cinematography of THE INTERNATIONAL and NANGA PARBAT:

VisionARRI (article on p. 44+56)

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.