Comments on: Technical details on The Nines

By: cathy

cathy — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 16:21:56 +0000

Thank you a lot for giving us the good technical details. Enjoy it.

By: Mike Curtis

Mike Curtis — Sat, 11 Aug 2007 16:07:35 +0000

Hi John! Thanks for the mention, and it is fun to see that flowchart now, what, almost two years later? Things continue to change, and rapidly (like you mentioning you might cut in HD now, but it wouldn't affect the quality of the final result).

-mike curtis, hdforindies.com

By: Adam

Adam — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 16:40:39 +0000

It's not the cost of film solely. I have shot a lot on 35mm. It's the cost of laboratory developing, telecine, color timing and a host of other goodies that you pay for when shooting film.

35 will always be around and probably be the medium of choice for the bulk of films out there, but it is pricey, no doubt.

By: mike

mike — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:43:50 +0000

Hey John

Another great blog post, and nice one sheet!

Though I disagree, grips/sparks DO get excited by new c stands and the like - I know, I've seen it! (joke - how do you give a grip nightmares? Open up a truck full of opened c stands and ask to straighten them out).

Funny how people think some gizmo is going to revolutionize the industry. It doesn't make catering etc any cheaper, that's for sure! I'd still rather shoot 2 perf or S16 than any electronic medium unless the story called for it to be shot on video. The cost of film isn't the biggest budget headache some seem to think it is.

Hope 'Nines' gets a UK distribution deal ;)

By: William

William — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:23:21 +0000

People should absolutely be watching RED. Once their team works out the kinks with that camera it will be a contender in the digital domain. Steven Soderbergh is shooting his next two feature films using the RED camera. I think Soderbergh is a filmmaker that’s done it all: the mega multiplex movies, the DV feature with name talent and the low-budget independent that launched his career. I would say he has some clout.

By: Adam

Adam — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 05:57:30 +0000

"A movie shot with it will not be magically awesome."

Right - but it will give smalltime indies a tool that absolutely blows the doors off a genesis - Panavision wanted $25K per week when I called to rent the (overhyped) genesis - The RED is going to be about $45K with lenses...to buy.

Solid state storage, 4K resolution, 100fps overcrank. Bargain.

By: John August

John August — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 04:57:26 +0000

I enjoy watching all the excitement over the RED camera. I truly hope it's great and successful, but really, it's a camera, Mysterium sensor notwithstanding. A movie shot with it will not be magically awesome.

I wish grips got this excited over new c-stands. (Really! They have double the tip-less-ness!)

Daniel (#35):

1.85 made the most sense given the material. For Part Two, a reality show shot any wider wouldn't be as believable, and I didn't want to pillarbox an entire section. I love 2.35 in general. (Go was that, on Super-35.)

I will say, however, that the film is not entirely at this aspect ratio. One small section plays at a very unconventional ratio.

Dave K (#29):

I've already forgotten. Those numbers make my head hurt.

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 03:59:15 +0000

John,

What Super-16mm film stock did you use from Kodak?

By: Daniel

Daniel — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:37:25 +0000

John,

I was hoping you could talk a little bit about ratios and why you would choose to shoot in one or another. On IMDb (I don't know if this is correct) it lists THE NINES as being in 1.85:1. Why choose that as opposed to something wider?

And is how much the budget is/was available? Thanks.

By: Tom Corwine

Tom Corwine — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:04:01 +0000

Dave K (#29) summed it up nicely. Basically it has to do with the B&W to color transition and keeping B&W equipment compatible.

See the Wikipedia article on NTSC.

Also, the Wikipedia article on chroma subsampling for those interested in the whole 4:2:2 vs. 4:4:4 thing.

By: Tom Corwine

Tom Corwine — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 02:03:46 +0000

Dave K (#29) summed it up nicely. Baiscally it has to do with the B&W to color transition and keeping B&W equipment compatible.

See the Wikipedia article on NTSC.

Also, the Wikipedia article on chroma subsampling for those interested in the whole 4:2:2 vs. 4:4:4 thing.