1917
- Thread starter Liam Hall
- Start date
combatentropy
Veteran
Spooky indeed!
Glad to hear that you liked it. Maybe I will check it out.
Glad to hear that you liked it. Maybe I will check it out.
combatentropy
Veteran
Photonerdery:
Someone asked what camera and lens were used. It's unusual to ask what lens instead of what lenses. But this after all was a movie meant to look like a single take. So it makes sense that Mr. Roger Deakins might have used the same lens throughout. Knowing Roger Deakins, I would guess he preferred his usual: something just a bit wider than "normal". It turns out we have the Internet and a friendly D.P., so this should not be too hard.
IMDb says that it was shot on an Alexa Large Format, and it appears to be in the camera's 2.39-ratio, 4.5K-resolution mode. Therefore the pixel dimensions were 4448x1856, and the physical dimensions were 36.70x15.31mm. So its diagonal was 39.77mm, which is 92% of the 135 format's diagonal, 43.27mm.
As for the lens, he used Arri Signature Primes. Yes, primes, plural. Almost all of the film was shot with the 40mm. Two shots were with the 35mm, and I don't know which shots those were. We get all of this from the man himself, on his own website.
Because aspect ratios vary from format to format (3:2, 4:3, 16:9, 2.39:1) I have always felt that the dimension to pay most attention to, to consider the overall feel of a focal length, is the diagonal. Like I said, the diagonal was 92% of 135, so a 40mm lens had the same angle of view (53°) as a 43.5mm lens in the 135 format. And that's pretty much what I would have chosen too.
Someone asked what camera and lens were used. It's unusual to ask what lens instead of what lenses. But this after all was a movie meant to look like a single take. So it makes sense that Mr. Roger Deakins might have used the same lens throughout. Knowing Roger Deakins, I would guess he preferred his usual: something just a bit wider than "normal". It turns out we have the Internet and a friendly D.P., so this should not be too hard.
IMDb says that it was shot on an Alexa Large Format, and it appears to be in the camera's 2.39-ratio, 4.5K-resolution mode. Therefore the pixel dimensions were 4448x1856, and the physical dimensions were 36.70x15.31mm. So its diagonal was 39.77mm, which is 92% of the 135 format's diagonal, 43.27mm.
As for the lens, he used Arri Signature Primes. Yes, primes, plural. Almost all of the film was shot with the 40mm. Two shots were with the 35mm, and I don't know which shots those were. We get all of this from the man himself, on his own website.
Because aspect ratios vary from format to format (3:2, 4:3, 16:9, 2.39:1) I have always felt that the dimension to pay most attention to, to consider the overall feel of a focal length, is the diagonal. Like I said, the diagonal was 92% of 135, so a 40mm lens had the same angle of view (53°) as a 43.5mm lens in the 135 format. And that's pretty much what I would have chosen too.
Last edited:
cyvideo
Veteran
1917, I'm really hanging out to see this film. Ever since American Beauty Mendes' way of making movie has always held a bit of magic for me.
Within my time DP Philip H. Lathrop was the first I can recall who shot an entire film with one lens. I saw the following film on its release in 1967. As a young cameraman at the time I was blown away back then just how much visual story impact can be created with just one lens. The whole film was shot on a 40mm lens. Tarantino once indicated that this look was his inspiration for Reservoir Dogs. John Boorman directed the film and it's still very watchable today.
Chris Young
And all of this on one 40mm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LRE5GKTu4c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz1328EcZlQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkBWagBVBxM
Within my time DP Philip H. Lathrop was the first I can recall who shot an entire film with one lens. I saw the following film on its release in 1967. As a young cameraman at the time I was blown away back then just how much visual story impact can be created with just one lens. The whole film was shot on a 40mm lens. Tarantino once indicated that this look was his inspiration for Reservoir Dogs. John Boorman directed the film and it's still very watchable today.
Chris Young
And all of this on one 40mm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LRE5GKTu4c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz1328EcZlQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkBWagBVBxM
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
There is an interview where Deakins mentions how a 40mm on Alexa LF is good for wides and close ups. Doesn’t distort facoal features in a close up too badly, and still shows enough of the world.
But i’m not sure if that is the focal length they used. There was a moment i thought i saw a slight zoom.
But i’m not sure if that is the focal length they used. There was a moment i thought i saw a slight zoom.
Liam Hall
Veteran
I could tell from the opening shot it was a large format camera with a ‘normal’ focal length lens. It had to be Alexa LF: this is Deakins, after all.
If after watching the film your only questions are what lens and camera, then you’re really not paying attention. There’s so much to admire, so many clever and ingenious touches. So many, “how did they do that” moments. As I said earlier, mesmerising.
If after watching the film your only questions are what lens and camera, then you’re really not paying attention. There’s so much to admire, so many clever and ingenious touches. So many, “how did they do that” moments. As I said earlier, mesmerising.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
there is a decent BTS vid somewhere on YT
gimbals, steadicams, techno all the bits
I like the way is makes two people on a gimbal acceptable
gimbals, steadicams, techno all the bits
I like the way is makes two people on a gimbal acceptable
Liam Hall
Veteran
There's a really good interview with Deakins knocking about somewhere too. He mentions using a combination of technocrane, trinity arm, gimbal and various camera tracking vehicles. On some shots they used six grips to handle the gimbal. How they managed to operate with such finesse is extraordinary and way beyond my pay grade. It's like they've taken the best Scorcese ever did and the best Francis Ford Coppola ever did and turned it up to 11.
Batutta
Major Contributor
It's a stunning technical achievement. The sequence in the middle at night with the flares going over the bombed out city is one of the most beautiful shots I've ever seen. As a movie, I think ultimately the form they chose limits its reach as a story. It isn't about much, but what it's about it does as well as could possibly be done. I wouldn't give it best picture, but Deakins will certainly get best cinematography and it will sweep the technical categories.
Run&Gun
Veteran
I haven’t seen it yet, but what I think draws most of ‘us’ into it, is how they did it. The masterful, technical, logistical planning and execution of something like this isn’t appreciated by or cared about by the general public, but knowing these details draws people like us to it like a moth to a flame. Just like “that” episode of True Detective with the ‘oner’. Whether you watched the show or not, you wanted to see that shot, that scene that everyone was talking about. This is that “to 11”, to borrow from Liam.
Now the decision I have to make is do I go see it in the theater or just wait until it’s streaming? I just had my projector and 120” screen installed last week... But I’m leaning hard towards the theater. I think this is one of those movies that deserves to be seen on a truly big screen.
Now the decision I have to make is do I go see it in the theater or just wait until it’s streaming? I just had my projector and 120” screen installed last week... But I’m leaning hard towards the theater. I think this is one of those movies that deserves to be seen on a truly big screen.
Batutta
Major Contributor
If you can see it in a good theater, definitely do. Saw it at the Arclight in Hollywood and it was stunning.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
What projector setup did you go with? I'm currently trying to decide between the JVC NX5 or Sony VPL-VW295es for my home theater setup, which are the primary two I've narrowed down to. JVC, better image, Sony better input lag for gaming, which I do a bit of. I was hoping CES would come out with another option for a native 4K projector under $5k with good input lag as the Sony has various drawbacks, but haven't seen anything on that front. In any case, should be slightly better than the 17.3" laptop monitor I've been watching movies on for the past several years since I don't own a decent TV.
Crazy to think with a good enough home theater setup it largely negates the benefits of going to a regular theater. I guess a regular theater still has a larger screen size with better speakers and projector, and you get to see the movies sooner.
I'm planning to see 1917 in IMAX tonight, have to drive about an hour to get to a theater showing it in IMAX; Star Wars is still hogging up a lot of the closer IMAX screens.
Last edited:
Check the demos and reviews on YT, this looks like the best projector available for the money, especially with an ALR screen: https://www.vava.com/products/4k-ultra-short-throw-laser-projector
Example (lots more ALR screen brands / sizes / styles to choose from):
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
It's not native 4K; it uses pixel shifting to create fake 4K. I guess it depends on how much that matters. I have a room without windows so I don't know that a 6000 lumen projector would really be of benefit over a lower lumen projector.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
On another note, I'm rather worried that the image quality of 1917 won't be up to par. According to Dan (Puredrifting), large format is challenged with lower quality lenses and a myriad of other issues, so Deakins, who was clearly bamboozled by Arri's clever marketing (he probably watched their interviews with Deakin's which helped convince him to choose the Mini LF), apparently chose the wrong camera for the job when Super35 would have resulted in being able to use superior lenses with a superior Super35 format.
Liam Hall
Veteran
Yes, that was Apocalypse Now, only better.
Essentially, it's a road movie.
Not about much? It's about life and death, and family, and humanity. I'd say that was quite a bit.
Liam Hall
Veteran
I try very hard not to be a camera nerd in the cinema. Yes, I appreciate the technique, but only when it serves the script, as it did here. First and foremost I want to watch the film, it's afterwards, I try and break it down - the price of cinema tickets these days I want to enjoy the movie, not feel like I'm at work. BTW first thing I heard walking out was two guys commenting on the amazing camera work.
Go see it at the theatre, a good theatre.
Liam Hall
Veteran
This is LOL. Are you trolling here Eric?
Batutta
Major Contributor
I picked up a refurbished Epson 5040ub from Epson with full warranty for 1600 Canadian, roughly 1200 USD. Does 4k Pixel shift. Couldn't be happier with the image. And it has a fully motorized lens, so you can use a cinemascope screen and set different zoom settings for various aspect ratios. It has a setting that improves input lag, at the expense of image processing quality, but I can't tell the image quality difference between the two frankly. Lag is rated a 28ms.
Last edited:
Batutta
Major Contributor
It mostly follows two characters, who aren't all that interesting to be honest. It's not My Dinner With Andre. To me, it's a pure experience movie. A theme park ride. I didn't find it incredibly deep, or moving. Im not sure they could have made it that, with this approach, so it's not really a criticism, just a categorization.