Just watched the Tourist tonight and the entire movie, I kept saying that it looked like it was shot with a HD hand cam like a Flip or something. I found lighting and some of the scenes to be a bit flat or something. Is it just me? My sister noticed it to and said that it looked a little strange and not like a regular digital film.
Does anyone know what this movie was shot with?
The film was shot in regular 35mm and I thought it looked spectacular. Don't know what kind of TV you watched it on but I have a 1080p HD projector and I watched on my 120" screen and the film looked stunning. One of best looking film to come out in recent years, unfortunately the movie itself was a let down.
shareNo no no. I think you're understanding me wrong. Overall the end quality of the film was fine. We watched it on a flat screen TV in HD. It was crisp and clear. That is not what I'm talking about. The lighting was a little strange and the angles were also different. It looked different from other films. Not saying that every film has to follow the same framework or anything, but I noticed this one looked different. I'm certain it was shot in a different way with a different type of camera.
One of the first things that I notice about a film is the cinematography, the style of shooting it, the color, and the angles. This had something different in all of those categories. So I'm really just more interested in reading on exactly what equipment was used during the production. What type of camera etc.
Out of curiosity, what source are you reading that says it was shot in regular 35mm?
I assume you're new to imdb? You can find out what kind of cameras the filmmakers used on almost every movie listed on this site. Here's a quick link to the tech spec of The Tourist:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1243957/technical
No I'm not new to IMDB. I just linked it up with my Facebook account and it changed my username. Been on here since 2005.
I looked at this tech page once before but "Kodak Vision3 500T 5219" was not up there. It was updated since then. Otherwise, I wouldn't have asked.
The Kodak Vision3 500T 5219 came out in 2007. I don't think this was the camera used, as it is strictly film camera I believe.
THIS article was exactly what I was looking for, just so you know.
http://www.panavision.com/content/john-seale-asc-acs-discusses-his-work-tourist
Like I said, there is something different about the lighting and shooting. I noticed it.
This is an interview with the cinematographer that shot the Tourist. I'll save you the trouble and post the part I am concerned about here. Like I said, there is something different about the lighting and shooting. I noticed it. I notice lighting, camera work, and lenses when I'm watching a film.
What is your decision-making process between shooting spherical or anamorphic?
JS: The decision to use a particular format can be controlled by a number of considerations. Anamorphic, whether by extraction from a spherical format or full cover, can often be a demand of the studios or it could be a consideration of the style of the film by the director and cameraman. There are a large number of variances that can influence that decision. Spherical (1:85) to me has always been more of a people format, whereas anamorphic is more of a scenic format.
How much of that decision is related to your artistic take on the script vs. that of the director?
JS: There has to be a different approach to the different formats. Anamorphic is a 2-shot format, i.e., the frame is so wide it is difficult to get a clean single. So sometimes it is best to go for the 2-shot rather than dirty singles, which means the film will be edited in a different manner as well, since the editors may not have to cut the film as much to get the scene. Sound is compromised with 2:35 digital extraction, especially if the studio wants to retain a 4-perf negative: for the negative to clear the boom is always kept well away from the actors, but less so if it is “full cover” (negative anamorphic that uses the full height of the negative).
Do you have a different approach in how you shoot anamorphic vs. spherical?
JS: The approach to the different formats are basically the same regarding grip gear and lighting gear, although anamorphic does require a consideration of more equipment to cover the wider area and an increase in light values to take into consideration the slower lenses of full cover anamorphics. Not much else is changed other than the artistic approach to the film.
The last film you shot, “The Tourist,” was shot in anamorphic. Do you find that with the increasing use of digital, it is easier, or harder, to shoot widescreen format?
JS: “The Tourist” was shot full cover anamorphic. I had not done this for quite a number of years, as most films are happy to do a digital extraction of the anamorphic format, from a spherical negative. The anamorphic extraction of the image from spherical lenses can be very successful, although it has a perspective change from full cover or "squeeze" lenses (this can be an important consideration to determine which system of anamorphic will be used).
When shooting “The Tourist,” what can you tell us about how you designed your lighting to photograph Angelina Jolie.
JS: There is new technology in LED light that is incredible. That we can now handhold a small light -- self-powered and cool -- to use as fill light is extraordinary. Throughout “The Tourist” we used these LED “bricks” to fill all the actors in all situations. These were “fill” light and were supplementary to the overall lighting plan, which was designed to light the film to the director’s overall feeling of the look of the film. The versatility of these small "bricks" made it so easy to use in cars, on boats, and in small locations, to realize what we wanted.
Are there any particular scenes in “The Tourist” you can talk about where you really pushed the envelope on lighting?
JS: There was a chase scene in boats through the Venetian canals at night that created some very worthwhile challenges. The prime lenses we used were around T2.6, but the zooms and others went to T4.5. Shooting multiple cameras with a range of stops like that was very challenging. By unashamedly using everything we had (i.e., force development...200 degrees...and digital enhancement), we were able to match all the lenses through that range. Venice is very dark at night, so everything we wanted to see was lit by the gaffer and his crew. This entailed lighting hundreds of metres of canal, in both directions, so we could shoot the action with multiple cameras.
Do you have any favorite Panavision lenses? If so, why?
JS: My favorite lens is the one that is shooting the shot, because it is the right lens for that shot. But I do love the 11:1 zoom lens. I think it is such a great piece of glass, has a fantastic range (24:275) and in spherical is a T2.8 lens. Some films have almost been shot entirely on that lens.
So you did the cinematographer answered your question? I notice lighting, camera work, and lenses when I'm watching a film too and The Tourist looked pretty darn good to me. I don't know what kind of TV you watched it on but maybe you need to recalibrate it? I watched it on Blu-ray on my 120" screen and again I thought the cinematography was great. Check out the review of the Blu-ray here:
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/4361/tourist.html#Section3
"The Kodak Vision3 500T 5219 came out in 2007. I don't think this was the camera used"
Kodak Vision3 isn't a camera - it's a film stock.
As for the interview with John Seale, the only mention of anything relatively unusual is the use of LCD lamps. This has become increasingly common over the last few years but in most circumstances their advantage is ease of use rather than having a look which could not be duplicated using other light sources.
The main difference from the astute viewers point of view is that in very confined spaces it might be possible to place a lamp (or provide a broad light source) where it would otherwise be very difficult or impossible. The overall look of the film wouldn't be any different.
The easiest thing would have been to look closely at the end credits of the film.
It always says what equipment the film was shot on - in this case: Panavision.
You have a to dig a little deeper to find the exact camera and film that was used. There are several Panvision cameras. Panavision Genesis is the high end camera, and I don't think this movie was shot with that particular camera though.
Most credits will just list "Shot with Panavision Cameras" but won't list the model or specs.
Well, the Genesis is a digital camera, not 35mm film, so obviously that's out of the question.
shareI'm not sure what you mean. This thread is about the camera the movie was shot with, not the film.
shareYes, but The Tourist was shot on film, not digitally, so they couldn't have used a digital camera to shoot it. As the Genesis is a purely digital camera, it was not the camera used on this movie. That narrows down your choice of cameras.
shareBut the OP was convinced that the film was shot digitally and therefore the camera would have a major bearing on the look of the film. (The differences in the end results produced by different high-end digital cameras isn't as significant as many people think but that's another matter.)
However, given that the film was shot on film, what camera the film was loaded into becomes almost completely irrelevant - the film stock much more relevant.
Camera
Panavision Panaflex Cameras, Panavision C-, E-, G-Series, ATZ and AWZ2 Lenses
Laboratory
Company 3, Los Angeles (CA), USA (digital intermediate)
Technicolor, USA (film processing)
Film length (metres)
2.828 m (Portugal, 35mm)
2824 m (Sweden)
Film negative format (mm/video inches)
35 mm (Kodak Vision3 500T 5219)
Cinematographic process
Digital Intermediate (4K) (master format)
Panavision (anamorphic) (source format)
Printed film format
35 mm
D-Cinema
Aspect ratio
2.35 : 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flip cam? now that would have been hilarious to film the ballroom scene with that !
I hope that the cinematographer doesn't read these things....
Definitely it was a Panavision film camera. You can see it in the Special Features.