A question about film speeds, formats, Jurassic World vs Jurassic Park (and a questio

[Karim D. Ghantous]

Jurassic World was shot with six film stocks: 7203, 5203, 5213, 7213, 5230, 7230.


I get why you would use different formats and speeds in the same production. If chosen wisely, they make perfect sense (despite my own personal ideal of using only one stock throughout the production). Note the conspicuous absence of 5219.


Now, here is how Jurassic Park was photographed, according to American Cinematographer, June 1993:


Main format for interiors: 4-perf 5296 (ASA 500)


Main format for exteriors: 4-perf 5248 (ASA 100)


Plate camera shot 8-perf of unspecified stock


Some plates were shot on 4-perf 5245 (ASA 50).


Dean Cundy: "However, since compositing was done digitally at ILM, it gave us the opportunity to try something new. I shot some of the outside exterior plates in 35mm film format [4-perf] using the 5245 film. That saved us some precious time. The image quality was pristine, and the composites made with the 35mm film plates are transparent."


This all makes sense. Back then, most release prints were 4-perf and so everything was reduced to that format. The 8-perf plates were not intended to give more resolution to the release print, they were intended to make compositing easier.


But with Jurassic World, we have a situation which is highly polarised: slow 65mm (7203) and fast 35mm (5230), in the same production - although as I said above, there were others. That's a huge difference. Perhaps a compromise could have been to shoot everything in 8-perf 5219. Or 4-perf 5213. Or... etc.


I have nothing bad to say about any of the stocks, but I just don't get how six film stocks, two of which are vastly different, could be used in one production. So what's the deal here?


AC article on Jurassic Park:


https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/45862794/AC_1993-06_Jurassic_Park.zip



A brief story on Jurassic World:


http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Publications/InCamera/Jurassic_World_Calls_for_65_mm_Film.htm

--


So is 4-perf 5203 good enough for full-size IMAX? If not, would it have to do with something other than sharpness, such as density? If 5203 was good enough for IMAX, you can imagine how much easier it would be for the production and the projectionist, assuming a 100% film set-up.

 

[dio Zafi]

So is 4-perf 5203 good enough for full-size IMAX? If not, would it have to do with something other than sharpness, such as density? If 5203 was good enough for IMAX, you can imagine how much easier it would be for the production and the projectionist, assuming a 100% film set-up.

shooting an advertising campaign now on Kodak...and we are shooting different locations...etc...on 5203...so to answer your question...5203 is good enough..but this was a big film making I think a billion at the box office..so they we're very very precise

 

[Phil Holland]

So is 4-perf 5203 good enough for full-size IMAX? If not, would it have to do with something other than sharpness, such as density? If 5203 was good enough for IMAX, you can imagine how much easier it would be for the production and the projectionist, assuming a 100% film set-up.

shooting an advertising campaign now on Kodak...and we are shooting different locations...etc...on 5203...so to answer your question...5203 is good enough..but this was a big film making I think a billion at the box office..so they we're very very precise

I have fairly strong feelings about what IMAX "should" be. However, in these times we've seen S35 4-perf and 2K digital projections on IMAX screens that were initially intended for 70mm 15-perf image. IMAX to me is about two things. Format and Resolution. Format-wise a true IMAX negative is rather large which provides much more detail if shot nicely. However, in these times where resolution is tipping in at 8K and maybe beyond one day we are getting to a place where we have the detail to make it happen.

I wrote a small document and put it up here on REDuser titled "Immersive Viewing" where I discuss my "Window Effect" theory and go over standard viewing distances for screens and their relationship to resolution. You might find it interesting:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?132182-RED-Weapon-Dragon-Immersive-Viewing&highlight=

For me personally, when it comes to IMAX I want 8K (or higher resolution) finish and projection. Projection in 8K just isn't there yet, but it has happened and will happen in the future. Format size is a factor, but for me anything larger than S35 should be in bounds when dealing with digital large format cinema. VistaVision, 65mm, 70mm IMAX, whatever it takes.