Lawrence of Arabia

[Matt Pacini]

Hey, I just watched Lawrence of Arabia last night on my new DVD player, and let me tell you, if you haven't seen it, go rent it.
It's a masterpiece, in many ways.
The cinematography is astounding, I just sat there almost with my jaw hitting the floor.
I had seen it as a kid, but have wanted to see it since I've gotten into filmmaking, but just never gotten around to it until now.
Really amazing.
It was shot in Super panavision 70, and I just can't imagine what a pain in the butt it must have been, carting around near-refrigerator sized camera rigs in the desert like that.
I'm thinking of modifying 4 Nizo cameras to shoot side by side, so I can get a big freakin frame like that and composite them together in AfterFX! (har har!)

How many of you have seen it?


------------------

[jocko]

Matt,
It is a masterpiece..The cinematography is out of this world..thats what I did when I whatched again..I tried to figure out how they did the shots..I would have hated to have been a grip on that set..hey there is a 65mm Todd AO camera for sale on e-bay..wanna go halves?..get out your back brace.

neil

------------------

[Matt Pacini]

Yeah, I actually need to go back and watch it again, because I had a hard time paying attention to the dialog, I was just mesmerized at how much detail there is in the image, and how everything is crystal clear, not just in a deep focus sense, but just that it seems like there is complete detail in the shadows and highlights, and these sorry bastards are shooting in the middle of the day in the desert, for crying out loud. Astounding!

Let's speculate on why, since anything you watch on TV is basically 720x480 or close to it, (I'm watching this on a normal TV, incidentally, not 16x9, etc), that having a higher resolution acquisition format still makes so much difference in apparent resolution?
In other words, even 16mm is greater resolution than D1, certainly 35mm, and 65mm is WAY beyond, yet you can still tell the difference on a standard TV?

Obviously, this assumes all other factors are the same, which they never are: quality of photography in general, exposure, lens sharpness, etc. etc., but still, you can always tell in sharpness, which theoretically, you shouldn't be able to tell, right?

I just thought I'd open this up for debate!

Matt Pacini

------------------

[Actor]

Lawrence of Arabia trivia
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>They production had only one camera
<LI>The camera did not have reflex veiwing
<LI>Wet rags were kept on top of the camera at all times to keep the temperature inside from rising and ruining the film
<LI>Actor Peter O'Toole was provided with an air conditioned tent, the only member of the cast/crew to have one. This was a concession to O'Toole to keep him from jumping ship when his contract ran out and the film was behind schedule
<LI>O'Toole's wife was flown in on weekends for conjugal visits[/list]

------------------

[Hanthx]

Not to change films (cause Lawrence of Arabia is one of my favorites!) but I recently saw "The Professional" by Luc Besson, and was overwhelmed by the cinematography, and the fabulous story.

Scott

------------------

[MovieStuff]

It is an awsome movie on all levels. I can NOT imagine shooting in the desert with all that sand blowing about. I am surprised that they didn't have just one huge scratch down the middle of the film!

I am reminded of something I read about Disney's group doing a short for their 360 degree theater at Disneyland or where ever. They worked out the camera with not problem, but once out in the desert location, they realized they had no place to hide all the support trucks and other equipment and personel! The cameras had a 360 degree view, so they had to move everything and everyone quite some distance away behind sand dunes and the such. Then some poor bastard had to brush away all the tire tracks and foot prints!

Anyway, L of A is one fine motion picture. I listen to the score from that movie all the time while I work. Very inspiring, in itself.

Roger

[Scott Nocella]

It's nice to watch a movie in DVD with the right sound system, and really hear the experience as well as see it....Surround Sound at home rules....Did they remaster the sound for 5.1 surround Matt ?

------------------

[Matt Pacini]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Scott Nocella:
[B]"Did they remaster the sound for 5.1 surround Matt ?"

I don't know, I don't have surround, unfortunately...

Matt Pacini

------------------

[Actor]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Did they remaster the sound for 5.1 surround...?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, they did!!



------------------

[c_77]

Ah yes, the Old Masters...These are the kinds of cinematographers I would like sit down and talk to before they pass...Maybe I'm getting sentimental as I get older (near 25), but, "They just don't make 'em like they used to."
-Later, Chris

------------------