Oceans 13 Feature...Lots of grain...

Post by **johnnhud** » Sat May 19, 2007 2:47 pm

Check out the new Oceans 13 feature on apple.com. The footage that they are showing looks very grainy. Do you suppose they are shooting on Super 16? If so, Why? I don't think I'vd seen a 35mm stock that looks as gritty as what I saw on the feature..

Post by **avr** » Sat May 19, 2007 4:45 pm

To me looks like HD

Is hard to judge this in a small TFT window

Post by **johnnhud** » Sun May 20, 2007 2:35 pm

You can view it at 1920 x 1080 so you should be able to tell. I dont think it's HD simply because I have never seen HD have grain sructure similar to film. In the feature, you can see two different shots of the cameras they are using, but I cant make out what they are.

Post by **mattias** » Sun May 20, 2007 2:55 pm

johnnhud wrote:you can see two different shots of the cameras they are using, but I cant make out what they are.

panavision 35mm. most likely non anamorphic, i.e. super-35. you can tell from the way the image goes out of focus uniformly unlike anamorphic blur which is distorted. that means less negative area thus more grain. and they obviously used as many tricks in the book as possible to make it look like a 70's movie, heavy pushing is likely for example, which results in more contrast, saturated colors, and more grain. sounds like what you've seen?

/matt

Post by **Justin Lovell** » Sun May 20, 2007 4:27 pm

speaking of HD grain..
I watched 300 in IMAX and was completely shocked by how damn good it looked.

I don't know if they used a grainier print stock to add the film grain, or if it was added in post (which I would believe the latter to be true). But dang nabbit it looked fantastic.

Post by **Mitch Perkins** » Sun May 20, 2007 5:25 pm

jusetan wrote:speaking of HD grain..
I watched 300 in IMAX and was completely shocked by how damn good it looked.

I don't know if they used a grainier print stock to add the film grain, or if it was added in post (which I would believe the latter to be true). But dang nabbit it looked fantastic.

Wouldn't the grain be from the blowup from 35mm? Though it was digitally remastered for IMAX, it was originated on Super35, so there'd be grain inherent from the get go...

Aside - when is a good time to pick up that wedding footage? (they don't like it floating around; the clients are particularly fussy about this)

Mitch

Post by **Justin Lovell** » Sun May 20, 2007 6:21 pm

print stocks aren't supposed to add any grain. I have to read an article on this first, but I thought it was shot primarily on video. (though some of the production photos do show use of film cameras...)

I'm in an out 'cause of the long weekend, but can drop it back off at NCL on wednesday (they're closed monday tuesday).

Post by **Mitch Perkins** » Sun May 20, 2007 6:27 pm

jusetan wrote:print stocks aren't supposed to add any grain. I have to read an article on this first, but I thought it was shot primarily on video. (though some of the production photos do show use of film cameras...)

Here ya go -

http://digitalcontentproducer.com/hdhdv ... _03272007/

"Curiously, one of the biggest draws at the HD EXPO event in Los Angeles earlier this month surrounded a movie that was shot entirely on 35mm film."

Mitch

Post by **Justin Lovell** » Sun May 20, 2007 6:31 pm

very cool!

Thanks for posting that and correcting me.

Post by **Mitch Perkins** » Sun May 20, 2007 6:52 pm

jusetan wrote:very cool!

Thanks for posting that and correcting me.

~:?)

Still can't find anything about Ocean's 13 origination. Since it's Steven Soderbergh, I'm assuming it's 35mm. Loved what he did with digital in "Full Frontal" - they went through a lot of steps, and the final images are like impressionist paintings. Any tool in the hands of the right artist...

Mitch

Post by **mattias** » Sun May 20, 2007 7:26 pm

Still can't find anything about Ocean's 13 origination

well, i'm sure if you read my post above again, especially the part where i say "panavision 35" i'm sure you'll figure it out. :-)

/matt

Post by **Mitch Perkins** » Sun May 20, 2007 7:47 pm

mattias wrote:
Still can't find anything about Ocean's 13 origination
well, i'm sure if you read my post above again, especially the part where i say "panavision 35" i'm sure you'll figure it out. :-)

/matt

~:?)

While I'm always prepared to take your word(s) for it, still, a picture's worth a thousand of 'em - too bad I couldn't make it appear here, but

http://clooneyproject.livejournal.com/tag/o13

click on pic to enlarge, under "Thanks to Yukko for this great picture of George hard at work on the set of O13."

Mitch

Post by **mattias** » Sun May 20, 2007 7:54 pm

Mitch Perkins wrote:While I'm always prepared to take your word(s) for it, still, a picture's worth a thousand of 'em

thanks, but i *was* referring to a picture. the camera is shown several times in the clip this thread is about.

/matt

Post by **Mitch Perkins** » Sun May 20, 2007 8:42 pm

mattias wrote:
Mitch Perkins wrote:While I'm always prepared to take your word(s) for it, still, a picture's worth a thousand of 'em
thanks, but i *was* referring to a picture. the camera is shown several times in the clip this thread is about.

/matt

Ah, I see now that, on top of not having QT installed on this computer, I am also an idiot.

Always good to know...~:?)

Mitch

Post by **johnnhud** » Sun May 20, 2007 11:19 pm

ok, i understand that super 35mm is going to be grainier than if they had shot it anamorphic. But still, it seems a lot grainier than usual. King Kong was also shot on super 35 but it had none of the grain that I'm seeing here. Perhaps a different "grainier" stock? Perhaps they added grain in post to help give it the '70's look you mentioned?