Administrators Andrew Reid 10,317 Posted January 17, 2016 Administrators Share Posted January 17, 2016 Some movies are escapism, warm and comforting. Some try to do the opposite.Read the full article graphicnatured, Zach Ashcraft, andy lee and 1 other 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Don Kotlos 912 Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 Inarritu describes one scene:http://graphics8.nytimes.com/video/players/offsite/index.html?videoId=100000004142315 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
richg101 1,098 Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 I saw the movie on Friday. visually one of the best films I have seen. I'd seen comments from others who said they couldn;t tell the difference between shots, but watching the movie is was very obvious when they were shooting 65mm. in image quality terms the digital projection of The Revenant smashed Hateful Eight (70mm film projection). Some of the vistas were incredible. I felt as far as an entertaining movie - I'm not looking forward to watching it again for it's entertainment value. I started hoping it would reach the end about 40mins before it actually did. And the cg on the bear scene was horrific. not up to the standards required for such a film. Zak Forsman and Nikkor 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SeanM 1 Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 Unfortunately there was only a small amount of this film shot on the Alexa 65. Lubezki estimated that only 13% of the movie was shot with it. They received the camera well after production was underway and was only planning on using it for establishing shots. It would be fun to know what was and wasn't shot on the new camera. Jim Chang 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
andy lee 1,010 Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 January 2016 American Cinematographer has full article telling you exactly how they made it all.Interestingly it saysTheRevenant ultimately relied on a combinationof Arri Alexa cameras: the AlexaXT, which was used primarily forSteadicam and crane shots; the AlexaM, which was designated as theprimary camera; and the new Alexa 65system, an early version of which Arrimade available to the filmmakersAccording to Lubezki,approximately 13 percent of TheRevenant was shot with the Alexa 65.“My preferred lenses are the[Arri/Zeiss] Master Primes and LeicaSummilux-Cs,” Lubezki says. “A verysmall range of lenses.” His main lenswas a Master Prime 14mm, with 12mmand 16mm used on occasion. He notesthat the Leica lenses — of which theproduction employed the 16mm, thewidest focal length available for thatseries — were particularly useful when alighter-weight lens was warranted. Thecinematographer explains with a laugh,“As I age, certain equipment becomesvery heavy for all the handheld work, sothe weight of the lenses does matter.The Leica lenses are light, but [retain]an incredible image.”The production encountered anongoing back-focus challenge with itsextensively used Master Prime widelenses whenever the temperaturedropped to near 0°. The problem wasn’tfully sorted out until a few weeks intoproduction, when Lubezki and Connorteamed with Panavision to find a solution.According to Connor, neither henor the Panavision team had seen thisphenomenon before on other showsshot in similar weather.As to the Alexa 65’s Prime 65lenses — which utilize optics fromHasselblad HCs — the 24mm was themain lens, and a 28mm was used occasionally.In terms of pulling focus, Connorattests that The Revenant was “the singlemost difficult movie I have ever done.”Noting that he uses a combination ofclassic and modern focus-pulling techniques,he says, “I still like to be close tothe camera, with a wireless focus andmonitor in hand. About 20 years ago, Itook the Preston wireless focus systemoff the Steadicam and used it on groundcameras to give me an advantage withever-challenging styles of shooting andextremely long lenses. It’s comprised ofa small 8-inch HD monitor with builtinLUTs and real peaking. Chivo onlyhas Log C coming out of the camera,and doesn’t like to see peaking on hismonitor or the director’s. The small HDmonitor allows me to apply any LUT, aswell as its own peaking. Along with aParalinx wireless transmitter mountedon the focus unit, [the rig] gives mecomplete mobility to move through theset terrain and see the scene develop orchange.its a very bold statement by the Director and DOP to shoot it all with available light , not many would have the guts to go that way on a modern made film , its such a unique look it achievesthey where shooting approx 9am - 3pm due to the light so it was short days so the shoot took alot longer Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Luc 5 Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 I saw a demo of the trailer processed in HDR from the source material, on a 4k Sony hdr compatible TV. Quite a show case for the technology. The landscape and skies looked great. I just hope they don't push the tech too far with some horrible tone-mapping. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
lesstalk 0 Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 I noticed that the production designer was jack Fisk, Malicks right hand man, which explains quite a bit I think. He's a bit of an unsung hero and I definitely noticed a quite strong cross over in look to elements of 'The new world'. I'm not sure if it's okay to post a link here but there is an interesting article about his work on the revenant here http://lwlies.com/interviews/jack-fisk-the-revenant-interview/I couldn't understand how people were managing to eat popcorn through the first ambush scene either, my jaw was on the floor. I can't remember the last time, if ever, that I have been so utterly blown away by the sheer intensity of what I was seeing. I will have to watch this many more times just to actually see it all, the frames are so ripe and full. The sun pouring down the valley in the last stand off scene was....there aren't words. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Zak Forsman 932 Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 Every time i walk into one of Inarritu's movies, I'm very optimistic. But I never feel quite satisfied by the experience. Couldn't quite connect with this one either. It was beautifully rendered certainly. But looking back i think my issue with it was that this had an hour's worth of story in the first and third act, with 90 minutes of episodic survival sequences that (for me) stalled the plot. meaning, you could have replaced all those scene with a "two weeks later..." title card and you'd have no meaningful issues with the narrative, character arcs, etc. Loved the beginning and ending though. Jimbo and mercer 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Administrators Andrew Reid 10,317 Posted January 18, 2016 Author Administrators Share Posted January 18, 2016 I quite enjoyed it when all the dialogue faded away and we were left with the survival stuff. Fun to be an observer in that situation, albeit a sadist one!! Jim Chang, Zak Forsman, Zach Ashcraft and 1 other 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Administrators Andrew Reid 10,317 Posted January 18, 2016 Author Administrators Share Posted January 18, 2016 I couldn't understand how people were managing to eat popcorn through the first ambush scene either, my jaw was on the floor. I can't remember the last time, if ever, that I have been so utterly blown away by the sheer intensity of what I was seeing. I will have to watch this many more times just to actually see it all, the frames are so ripe and full. The sun pouring down the valley in the last stand off scene was....there aren't words.Absolutely agree. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Franka Mech T. Lieu 4 Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 Referring the new Star War Movie to Feminist is typical stereotyping, and a rather irrational and somewhat sexist .. as for the movie, it just get me back to the core , the fundamental, the essential of what Photography and then Cine brings, that is to record a true event, scene, and a world. And this is what made it grand. No amount of wizardry can best mother nature in providing the perfect backdrop , setting, and stage , periodwhat the tech do is bringing that backdrop into a visual entity that we the viewer can feel it, enjoy it, and admire it , together with the story unfolding , that to me is what good cinematography should do Quote Link to post Share on other sites
graphicnatured 164 Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 I was literally gripping my seat throughout much of this film. Two things are known to me. I loved this movie and we have become total pussies since 1820. austinchimp 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Chrad 197 Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 I noticed that the production designer was jack Fisk, Malicks right hand man, which explains quite a bit I think. He's a bit of an unsung hero and I definitely noticed a quite strong cross over in look to elements of 'The new world'. I'm not sure if it's okay to post a link here but there is an interesting article about his work on the revenant here http://lwlies.com/interviews/jack-fisk-the-revenant-interview/I think it's pretty clear Iñárritu is in some ways trying hard to ape The New World. The ultra wide handheld low angles and decision to shoot in natural light scream Malick. Ed_David 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cpc 102 Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 Looking forward to seeing this in IMAX2D this week.Curious if the "approximately 13% Alexa 65" is actually distinguishable from all the other 87% Alexa footage. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Administrators Andrew Reid 10,317 Posted January 18, 2016 Author Administrators Share Posted January 18, 2016 Referring the new Star War Movie to Feminist is typical stereotyping, and a rather irrational and somewhat sexistI see you don't like my joke, and are probably reading a lot into it like 'typical stereotyping' and sexism.I have to say I don't appreciate that.Your kind of response reminds me a little bit of this shrill tone, in a review of The Revenant - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/17/revenant-leonardo-dicaprio-violent-meaningless-glorification-pain?CMP=share_btn_fbISIS video style violence, really?! A case of maybe reading far too much into what isn't there.I enjoyed the new Star Wars film. Only just seen it. Wasn't in a mad rush, because it had not really been part of my childhood like it had been for so many. In fact I was really into many films at all when I was 3 years old at the time Return of The Jedi came out and subsequently I didn't really get into any of them on VHS or on TV. Didn't need to. We had the BBC.At risk of gong off topic...There are definitely a lot of modern politically correct undertones in the new Star Wars franchise. For the first 10 minutes I enjoyed Rey. Great character but a very two dimensional one with a lot of overly expository lines lacking in wit, almost all of them saying "I don't need the help of a man". Well put the boot on the other foot and if all the male characters in the movies said "I don't need a woman" it would kill a bucket load of stories stone dead wouldn't it?To be honest Lara Croft In Space is not exactly original either.It's time escapist mainstream entertainment stopped worrying about modern gender and racial politics and got on with plain old storytelling.That new droid though... very cool. Nikkor 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
secretgoldfish 4 Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 The Revenant truly was great, my biggest gripe is that I don't have the chance to see it in 70mm in my city, partially because every 70mm capable cinema has been booked out with The Hateful 8. (yeah i know only 13% of The Revenant was shot on arri 65, but I'd still love to see that 13% up on the big screen).It's great that Quentin Tarantino is out spruking 70mm, I just wish he chose a different film to shoot in 70mm and by different I mean a film not mostly taking place in ONE location and an INTERIOR location at that (The film reminded me more of Reservoir Dogs than an epic 70mm western). Also...."Referring the new Star War Movie to Feminist is typical stereotyping, and a rather irrational and somewhat sexist ..WTF does that even mean? Care to elaborate, cause I read Andrew's original post...."It isn’t for those who haven’t got the stomach for violence and would prefer to see an empowering character driven feminist drama, like Star Wars: The Force Awakens."I don't see anything remotely sexist or stereotypical about stating that one film is gritty in comparison to another film being safe and pandering to its audience and target market. I say that as someone who really enjoyed the new Star Wars film and also as someone who felt Daisy Ridley and her character Rey were probably the best things about it. Make no mistake though, EVERYTHING about the new Star Wars film was very very carefully considered (market research wise). When you pay that much for a franchise, there is no way Disney would risk releasing another Phantom Menace to relaunch the franchise. Sadly the "feminist angle" folks have been discussing in The Force Awakens probably has more to do with DISNEY attempting to reach a wider target audience (and sell more toys) than it being about a genuine/sincere respect for feminism/women.If you're going to get all PC and offended by Andrew's snarky sarcastic wit (something I personally like about him and his site) at least have the courtesy to explain yourself after claiming offence. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ed_David 1,148 Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 The Reverent's Comments on Vimeo:"Amazing job!" "Really good stuff" "This is amazing!" "This is so good!" "Alexandro does it again!" "What camera was this shot on?" Andrew Reid, Chrad and Zach Ashcraft 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Zak Forsman 932 Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 Well, when will you learn that your optimism is stupid and that Iñárritu's movies are bound to disappoint you?Never. I don't go to movies rooting for the filmmaker to fail. I suppose any disappointment is the price one pays for not being an asshole. Jimbo and agolex 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
richg101 1,098 Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 But you should really lower your expectations if you have already had disappointing experiences with a filmmaker in the past. this is quite ridiculous. You make the assumption that pessimism is a mental state we all share. It's the same as suggesting that if you fail at something the first, second and third time you should just give up and never try again! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Nikkor 895 Posted January 18, 2016 Share Posted January 18, 2016 If someone let you down several times then you shouldn't fully trust that person ever again. That's a simple lesson life teaches you.The same is true for filmmakers.Yeah I totally get you, I cry every time someone makes me see a movie that's not 100% awesome and up to my expectations. It's also been 3 times a friend of mine hasn't made me laugh enough on saturday nights, I won't be wasting anymore time with him.Back to reality, I didn't enjoy the movie, the visual part was nice but I think the camera work was half assed, it didn't really work out imho. Not to talk about the story, which was laughable.Birdman on the otherhand had me tied to the screen for the whole time, best movie I've seen in a long time. There were some aspects of the script (that pseudo intellectual stuff) that sucked, but you don't really care when the movie has a nice rythm and momentum. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.