Terrence Mallick's "The New World"

[mattias]

*Apparently they shot 1,000,000 feet of film - which in my estimate comes to 18.5 hours (35mm at 24fps) - but for a film at 135 minutes that comes to a shooting ratio of 1:8 -- still pretty high though

that's the lowest ratio i've ever heard of in a major film. what do you mean? i had to redo your calculations and with my comma placement i came to 185 hours and a 1:80 ratio, which sounds much more likely.

*It was shot mainly on 200T and 500T - I don't understand why it wasn't shot on daylight stock [...] All shots must be 'deep-focus shots'

there you go. while there's the v2 250d and the reala 500d but both have a very particular look which i guess they didn't want. 500t is the only high speed stock that has normal contrast, and when that choice was made 200t became the logical choice for a slower stock since it intercuts perfectly. i'm only speculating but i'm pretty sure i'm right. ;-)

i thought the film was good, the cinematography in particular, but no masterpiece.

/matt

[Scotness]

that's the lowest ratio i've ever heard of in a major film. what do you mean? i had to redo your calculations and with my comma placement i came to 185 hours and a 1:80 ratio, which sounds much more likely.

/matt

According to IMDB

Over 1 million feet of film was shot for completion of the film.

- so I meant a million - in Europe commas can also mean decimal points can't they?

Anyway doing my calculations originally using my own filmulator programme I got 185 hours - I thought that couldn't be right so I went to the kodak calculator and I found it wouldnt' let me put in 1,000,000 feet - only 10,000 - but now I see where I went wrong - I multiplied that result by 10 not 100.

So thanks for pointing that out 185 hours is extraordinary to my mind, but I guess I'm just not used to big budget films - that's a ratio of 1:82. What kind of ratio do big films usually come in on?!

Scot

[freddiesykes]

In regards to Stanley Kubrick (from IMDb):

"Known for his exorbitant shooting ratio and endless takes, he reportedly exposed an incredible 1.3 million feet of film while shooting The Shining (1980), the release print of which runs for 142 minutes. Thus, he used less than 1% of the exposed film stock, making his shooting ratio an indulgent 102:1 when a ratio of 5 or 10:1 is considered the norm."

[Nigel]

I thought that they used some 65/70mm film. Which would lead to more feet per minute used.

Good Luck

[mattias]

- so I meant a million - in Europe commas can also mean decimal points can't they?

sure, but that's not what i meant. it was just a tongue in cheek way to say that you placed the comma in the wrong place throwing your calculation a magnitude off. :-)

What kind of ratio do big films usually come in on?!

i don't know, it's all over the scale. low budget films and indies are usually 10:1 or so, at least in sweden, while major films can have up to a few hundred to one. my own shorts that were shot on film have had between 4:1 and 10:1, the one i did on video was 20:1.

/matt

[mattias]

In regards to Stanley Kubrick (from IMDb):
[...] a ratio of 5 or 10:1 is considered the norm."

that's not true, and never was. if you're shooting coverage, which is the most common, even if you do few takes and never roll any extra seconds, it's hard to come under maybe 7:1. a lot of productions use some editing in camera techniques for budget reasons, but if you can afford it there's absolutely nothing unusual to have at least a 20:1 ratio. 182:1 is a lot by any standard though.

and like nigel says shooting a wider gauge means a low ratio, but even 100:1 is plenty.

/matt

[freddiesykes]

Yeah, 5 or 10:1 is pretty low. IMDb is sometimes filled with loads of crap and contradictions.

[woods01]

I loved the New World, it should've got the oscar for cinematography. A very poetic and visual film. I saw it in a near empty theatre, opening
weekend. But I don't believe this movie was shot without artifical light.

There is that scene with the chief in a very dark tent. Light streams in from a hole in the roof. With the way the sun moves you wouldn't get sun blasting in like that for more than an hour around noon. I bet the AC did an article on it for the definitive word but my instincts say they had to have had some help on a few of the interiors.

I think many filmmakers like to confuse people with terms like 'natural/
existing' light which gives the impression that they did not use artifical
light. But the term does mean mean you could put higher than normal watt bulbs in fixtures or have some big HMI blasting through the windows. This would be the only way to get consistent light to shoot coverage the Hollywood way (very slow).

And while they can claim they didn't use any lights for outdoor shots I
bet they had an army of grips flying 20 by silks and had mirrors reflecting splashes of sunlight where they wanted it.

Its one of the great film myths that Barry Lyndon was shot MOL. You can
find several articles on the lighting and even see photos of lights set up
to give the boosted sunlight effect. The BL legend has expanded upon
the candle lit scenes. Those were lit with just candles, no electic lights
used, but the daylight interior scenes had some artifcial help, probably
from brute arcs in those days.

[Scotness]

On the making of for The New World they look at that scene with the Chief - and another one as well - basically whenever there wasn't enough light they cheated by ripping holes in the roof to allow more natural light in - you see a few shots of the gaffer ripping holes in that hut and a wooden building as well where they knock out some timber from the roof.

With Mallick's way of working and most of it being steadicam I think they would be able to get those shots whilst the sun was still overhead for long enough (or just move the hole!).

And while they can claim they didn't use any lights for outdoor shots I
bet they had an army of grips flying 20 by silks and had mirrors reflecting splashes of sunlight where they wanted it.

Most probably - there's one shot in the making of where you can see the camera and the action being followed by someone with a reflector board.

I realise not everything that says natural light is natural light - there's a couple of scenes in Barry Lyndon that are clearly shot with electric light and they stand out like a sore thumb - I don't understand how they got in there. I did read that they diffused down some windows occasionally too, but by and large most of it would be natural light though.

It's an interesting thing to consider though - if you compare Barry Lyndon to Dangerous Liaisons - how the two lighting styles give a totally different feel for the age.



Scot

[MovieStuff]

If you want to see how horrid interiors can look with no extra light, take a look at "Pale Rider", an old Clint Eastwood film from the 80s. It is dark, dark, dark. Most of the interior shots were so dark that you could hardly even see people's faces. I haven't read any behind the scenes information but, from the look of the film, it seems as if they didn't even use reflectors. Just pointed the camera and shot film. Ballsy but it doesn't look very good.

Roger

[Scotness]

You know that's good to know - it's good to see the worst case scenarios as well - thanks

Scot

[woods01]

I havn't seen it but apparently the series Deadwood has very dark interiors.
They are going for the 'realisim' of how dark buildings were in those days. I
imagine Pale Rider was going for that too (but with probably 100asa film).
Havn't seen PR since the 1980s so perhaps I'm overdue to check that out
again.