Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Spiderman 2 moves away from RED?

lets Clarify something, nothing in the link you posted says they've moved away from Epic, like its inferior camera. Filmmakers with all the money in the world make conscious artistic decisions for cinematic aesthetics. The first Epic shot Spiderman was actually one on the richest, deepest color and resolution I've ever seen on a digital screen (thats just me) it could the color grading or 3D, but Hobbit did not look anything like it.
 
So they are also moving away from 3D (as it seems to be a single film camera on the steadycam) ?

Curious if it does mean the idea that "every movie must be shot in 3D" slowly declining in the hollywood industry now ?
 
dp and director are diehard about film. plain and simple. nothing more to it than just that. 3d has been and is on a decline, NAB really showed that this year, barely saw anything 3d this year. if they market shows post converted films do just as well as shot in 3d films, studios are just gonna lean towards that instead. spidey 2 will probably be post converted in the end, but it going to film has nothing to do with an epic being a bad camera, they just like film. as well as they should, film is awesome.
 
Director Marc Webb may be a film diehard, but the previous "Spiderman" movie was shot using Red Epic cameras and cinematographer John Schwartzman claimed that the combination of Epic and Ultra Primes made his images look like 65mm film in terms of sharpness. The fact they moved back to film for this sequel is 99.9999% due to Dan Mindel's preference of this medium (and anamorphic lenses) over any other. On the "American Cinematographer" article about "Savages", the film he shot last year for Oliver Stone, he claimed that he told the director that he would only photograph the picture if Stone was willing to switch back to 35mm anamorphic, after many years of using spherical lenses for his projects (I believe Stone's last anamorphic picture was "Nixon", shot by Bob Richardson, back in the mid 90's).
 
The cinematographer of new Spidey movie prefer shooting on analog film and I'm glad studio allowed him to use the gear and format he wants. I won't be seeing it in 3D just because I prefer movies shot in native stereo over post converted, but that's me. I'm positive, that Star Trek Into Darkness looks glorious in IMAX (2D).
 
Peter Proniewicz-Brooks said:
Not noticed any decline, it was never everything.
Click to expand...

Well there was a 3D trend in the last 2-3 years of hollywood blockbusters...

I personally never thought 3D brought anything interesting to the world of cinema, same for HFR.
IMO, both are a distraction, taking you out of the fictive world of a good old 24fps @180º movie !
 
Mikael Lubtchansky said:
So they are also moving away from 3D (as it seems to be a single film camera on the steadycam) ?

Curious if it does mean the idea that "every movie must be shot in 3D" slowly declining in the hollywood industry now ?
Click to expand...

Not being shot IN 3D isn't the same as not being shot FOR 3D. It is planned for 3D release, just as a post conversion. The arguments for and against post-conversion are pretty much the same as arguing between RED and film (no one agrees on which is better or even if they are the same).

It's interesting that one of the reasons he states for not shooting in 3D is that the 3D rig was too big/cumbersome for what he wanted to do and the speed he wanted to shoot at (productivity, not FPS). It's a good reminder that even though rigs using RED are smaller than ever before, they aren't small enough to convince every non-believer. Good thing RED has a things can always be better mindset.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top