Superman

Singer Pana lenses

Singer Pana lenses

donatello said:
studio's don't want to OWN camera's .. they can buy arri's today and they don't ... Hollywood loves to RENT .. they rent whole systems for features -whatever they need - 2 cameras or 8 camera's they rent ..if something goes wrong with the camera they make a call and it is replaced within a hr in LA ... in the long run it's just easier to rent for the studio's/producers ...

so a Pan-Red, Clairmont-Red, Otto-Red IMO will happen ..they will be full system camera's ( they will have their own modified cages etc) so the camera can be used with all current gear at rental house ...
.
Click to expand...

Yeah on that note I was reading an interview with Singer that he has his own set of lenses at Pana. They are his lenses and he has used them on every signle film from Suspects to Supes. It's a new look or something, but it's familar or something. I'd have to dig the magazine out again to be more specific.

Off topic, a couple of my friends worked on Supes in Australia and said Singer was allegedly loco. Obessive compulsive type. "Where's my hand wipes" & peanut butter jar replaced every day in his apartment type of dude. Also Parker Pose is supposedly being sued for trashing the apartment she stayed in whilst she was in Potts Point. Also allegedly Kate Bosworth broke up with Orlando Bloom during the shoot at started bonking a dude that looked like Orlando. Then Bloom showed up and they got back together.... Allegedly.

I guess film crews are gossipy. Take with a grain of salt. But I thought I'd share anyway.

El Stupido
 
EL_STUPIDO said:
Yeah on that note I was reading an interview with Singer that he has his own set of lenses at Pana. They are his lenses and he has used them on every single film from Suspects to Supes. It's a new look or something, but it's familar or something. I'd have to dig the magazine out again to be more specific.
Click to expand...

Geez...lets not perpetuate the usual big budget gossip...I'm sure most of have stories, all third hand.

To the real stuff. Thomas Sigel's First AC...one of the industry top dogs is Jimmy Jensen. He is a really cool cat.

Anyway, when you are that big of an AC over at Panavision woodland hills you literally get what you want when you want it.

So, Most big ACs over there hand pick their sets of lenses, epsecially the primes. They go to the lens dept with the lens tech and look at the lenses on a projector to make the closest matching set they can.

Jimmy made his set and keeps it on hold on Panavision. Anytime he preps a show over there for Thom, he gets those lenses.

Its good to be the king.
 
The article I read about Singer was real... and then you pretty much said the same thing I said about another dude re: keeping stuff at Pana.

Say... what gives?

I'd say the real stuff is: get your hand off it.
 
EL_STUPIDO said:
The article I read about Singer was real... and then you pretty much said the same thing I said about another dude re: keeping stuff at Pana.

Say... what gives?

I'd say the real stuff is: get your hand off it.
Click to expand...

The article you read is in fact real. I read it too. And it said exactly what I said about Jimmy.

Singer doesn't keep anything at Panavision. He probably has hardly ever set foot in there, unless they done their test shooting on the stage there.

So, I did say what you said....but in a more accurate fashion. Not trying to trump you, just getting the facts straight.

As for your get off it comment, dont know what youre trying to say.
 
SVT- Swedish Television

SVT- Swedish Television

Policar said:
Speaking of Superman, Singer wasn't able to use 65mm because he said it was "too expensive" even for his $230 million+ budget.

And yet that show is shot in 65mm at 50fps? What's the budget on an episode? That's insane....
Click to expand...

This film was only shot for test purposes. The Swedish TV needed good original material for investigation of future HDTV and digital broadcasting. They let a team create a short movie witch was shot on 65mm and onlined in full quality.
 
Well, Singer's AC wouldn't have been able to use his favorite set of lenses in 65mm.

Pulling focus would've been even harder considering the reduced depth of field characteristics of 65mm. Scanning thousands of feet of 65mm negative would've cost a bundle, that's for sure. Kodak would've had to produce additional stocks just for Superman so they could fulfill the contract.

But I'm sure the 4k D.I. would've been groundbreaking.
 
Just got back from "Superman Returns". If RED is anything REMOTELY similar in quality to the Genesis, than they're going to have to come up with a stronger word than "Revolutionary" to describe it.
 
yeah just saw Superman .... best digital movie I've ever seen hands down .... Genesis is legit! A perfectly soft but saturated DI didnt hurt either.
 
I saw a film print tonight.

I need to see it digitally projected.

Some scenes look like film...hard to tell.

Some scenes look like the HD of all HD, not a bad thing, just the look. sometimes its just tooooooo sharp...See AWFUL MAKE UP below.

The motion blur in pans is still TERRIBLE, but this is something that is much more noticable on a film out then digital projection.

The make up on the actors is AWFUL...looks like thick make up layered and caked on....and this did not help the over all look at the movie.


I really can't say this movie solidifed me on the Genesis being as good as I hoped. But again this film had so many effects, and so many alterations, and problems during production...its not a good example to begin with. And it ended up being a big test for the Genesis.

I just can't drool over it like the other two members are.

I think pretty much all of the best looking footage wound up in the trailers.

I really want to see Click...I've been seeing the trailers for months and had no clue it was shot on the Genesis...Now, THAT is a true sign of quality.
 
Last edited:
"The make up on the actors is AWFUL...looks like thick make up layered and caked on....and this did not help the over all look at the movie."

I'd have to agree the females looked cakey...but superman looked pretty cool to me. Does anyone know how they did that "flawless skin" effect for superman? Even though it made him plasticky and unreal looking, I liked the effect. In photoshop, it's easy to manipulate a person's skin to be perfect... how do they do the same thing in video? Do you have to painstakingly go in frame by frame to pull the effect off? I know makeup plays a huge role..but makeup alone couldn't have pulled off the effect. Any insight would be much appreciated. If you know any article links or books to go to, that would be cool too. thanks!

add on: I did a google search and stumbled onto this article.
http://scottwesterfeld.com/blog/?cat=4

Pretty interesting, however, it still doesn't explain the process of making perfect digital skin in video.
 
Last edited:
tonacidigital said:
"The make up on the actors is AWFUL...looks like thick make up layered and caked on....and this did not help the over all look at the movie."

I'd have to agree the females looked cakey...but superman looked pretty cool to me. Does anyone know how they did that "flawless skin" effect for superman? Even though it made him plasticky and unreal looking, I liked the effect. In photoshop, it's easy to manipulate a person's skin to be perfect... how do they do the same thing in video? Do you have to painstakingly go in frame by frame to pull the effect off? I know makeup plays a huge role..but makeup alone couldn't have pulled off the effect. Any insight would be much appreciated. If you know any article links or books to go to, that would be cool too. thanks!

add on: I did a google search and stumbled onto this article.
http://scottwesterfeld.com/blog/?cat=4

Pretty interesting, however, it still doesn't explain the process of making perfect digital skin in video.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure it was make up....you could see in all the close ups.
 
I know for a fact that a lot of post was done to clean up the makeup. What I found strange is that they didn't bother to use colored contact lenses and instead changed eye colors in post. There was also alot of pimple cleanup in post for young clark.
 
Interesting if the look for superman's skin was intentional.

But I never picked up on it before (seeing as he is supposed to look human.)
So, no mention of Supes having this perfect ethereal skin made me not like the look of it.
 
I haven't seen the movie yet, but in the trailers I thought that the skin tones, particularly in the closeups, looked surprisingly waxy and unnatural -- almost like bad colorization. I thought it might be an unfortunate Panavision Genesis artifact, but it is more likely due to some post processing.
 
I just saw the movie again this morning for the second time and have no idea what you guys are talking about. Didn't notice any "Bad makeup" or "bad skin". I thought it all looked amazing. The movie just blew me away. Every last bit of it.
 
"bgundu"

could you please share the techniques that are done in post to clean up? Is there any particular plugin used to clean up with? Or is it all done painstakingly frame by frame?
 
tonacidigital said:
"bgundu"

could you please share the techniques that are done in post to clean up? Is there any particular plugin used to clean up with? Or is it all done painstakingly frame by frame?
Click to expand...

To clarify, I only worked on the 3D Imax version of the film. Shots were constantly updated to the latest version. So I noticed with each version that we recieved, color grading and skin details were modified. If I had to guess how it was cleaned up, I'd guess making animated masks that revealed to blurred or smoothed out versions. And in some cases tracking and painting out stuff using interpolated paint strokes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top