Does anyone know what the make and model was for the anamorphic lense they used for "Japon"? Also, a lot of the exterior/whites were blown out? Was this done for stylistic reasons? Any info would be appreciated! Thank you!
shareReally, no one knows the answer to this question?
shareI can't answer your first question. But I believe that the whole (not only the exterior shots) was transfered from 16mm to 35mm.
share[deleted]
The Idiots used an anamorphic lens without noticing it until way later in exhibition. Because before they realized they filmed it with the anamorphic lens, they had in mind placing a softmatte over the image after filming everything.
The director and cameraman did not know what anamorphic meant, they just thought the term meant a magical cinematic term. They initially planned to film it in the traditional 1.33:1 aspect, and then place a softmatte to make it 1.85:1, but the idiots didn't realize that the lens they used eliminated the need for a softmatte, by stretching the image vertically.
So you had the film in it's original 1.33:1 vertically stretched, then they placed a softmatte to make it appear as a 1.85:1 and then blowing it up to 35mm. Completely ignorant process. Mexican cinema has sunk very very low.
That's why the image is so strange... It's by mistake, not because it was conciously done. The blown out shots were not on purpose, you can see various times, that they adjusted the exposure while filming.
share[deleted]
Do you know anything about filmmaking DonNadie?
Toxic crusader is right, the stretched image is due to the use of both anamorphic lenses and softmatting, if it was a mistake or not is anyone's guess.
But the process of using both is very telling that someone does not know what he's doing.
[deleted]
What I'm trying to say is: He used both methods... Filmed in anamorphic, and then softmatted it... that's why you see the inevitable stretched image.
You wouldn't happen to be the actual cameraman would you? And if you are, please explain why the obviously streched image. You can see the typical overstreched blurring of anamorphic imagery, and you can also see the softmatte (specially in the sex scene where a hair is noticeable on the lower left side).
My beef with all this is: How dare anyone set out to make a picture, without knowing the basics?
Again: What I'm saying is: They used both methods, one on top of the other.
[deleted]
The DVD is Letterboxed, and I've watched it on CRT monitors and a 29" Television (both in 1.33:1 aspect ratio), on the plasma display it looks awfull because you have to zoom into the already blocky compressed video. I've also seen tv shows featuring an interview or trailer of the film... and it is also streched vertically.
I always watch and make anamorphically encoded DVD's and they never appear streched out, even on 30 dollar dvd players. I actually author DVD's for a living, I've been doing it since 2001. And yes I am a professional... I mix in Dolby Digital EX 6.1, I animate in 3D and 2D in HDTV, I've been editing video since I was 15, and many of my short films have been featured on television, museums, and selected theatres, yes... on both sides of the border. I worked on a news station with DVCAM cameras at 18, I've worked with the latest hardware and software in radio, I've been involved with 16mm productions, and have always been surprised at the quality achieved by 16, not super16, and I can tell you that even without any reflectors or neutral density filters, the image is way superior to Japon. I have taken photography classes and learned how to control the light using only the camera, I process all my black&white pictures myself. I've done animations for many advertising companies, I've worked with real filmmakers, and you can basically say I am neither a rookie nor an ignorant.
So, again... the video is Letterboxed... It has black bars on top and below... you can even see compression glitches on the black bars, it is NOT anamorphic, so it's impossible to state that I have a wrong Setup. Either the Master was poorly done, or the source is vertically streched.
I won't even get into details about the DVD itself (bad compression resulting in blockines including on the black bars on top and below the film image, only stereo sound, not even spanish nor english subtitles).
I think there's no way of actually getting any real info out of you, and by now I'm guessing you were in fact involved with the production of this film. If you are, don't bother answering, because I can see you'll just say that my specific DVD was badly done (EVEN THOUGH ALL OVER THE TV YOU SEE THE EXACT SAME STRECHED IMAGE). Shame on you for cashing in on people's eagerness to understand flukes like you.
And also... how did it go with the new Reygada's film? I heard everyone booed the film... seems that even though he had more money and more support, he repeated the same formula and same gimmicks. People weren't fooled anymore.
See ya!!!
[deleted]
Wow, I didn't expect to start such a dialogue.
I was hoping to find the make and model of the anamorphic lense used. I believe there's a company in Virginia that makes an expensive 16mm anamorphic lense. I was hoping to find other less expensive alternatives.
Cheers!
Hehehe, I think I scared him off... But anyways... go with any midlevel price anamorphic lens... just be ready for the stretched image (this is inevitable for any model). Don't worry, when you proyect the film using the same lens, it won't look stretched and it'll be panoramic.
share[deleted]
I thought Vignatti/Tronchet just used a 2x anamorphic lens hence the 2.66:1 aspect ratio. What kind of stretch factor did the anamorphic lens have if they later soft matted it? That doesn't make any sense. Why would they soft matte it after they realized that they had shot it anamorphically? And I find it hard to believe that no one noticed that the camera had an anamorphic lens on it. The cinematographers were not exactly amateurs as evidenced by their resumes I'm sure they knew what they doing.
Regardless...
The film looked beautiful and Reygadas could have shot it with a toaster and it would still be great.
You must have been part of the film crew since you imply to know exactly what went on in their minds while filming.
share