All technical arguments aside, from you guys who know what you're talking about
(and I decidedly don't ), I have complete faith that we can count on Malick not
to put anything up on the screen that doesn't look great. I'm just worried that
he'll tinker with it indefinitely and it will be a long time before we see what
all the fuss is about.
 
For those who will settle for the past for now, if you want to see an odd but
good, nearly direct homage to "Days of Heaven", rent the little seen Canadian
film, "After the Harvest". I got my copy from Netflix. The director obviously
saw and loved DOH and was not afraid to incorporate a series of knock-off images
and themes, even though the film is adapted from a novel. Similarities to DOH
are uncanny and too numerous to mention. The main one is Sam Shepard's reprisal
of his role as the farmer. Having said all this, the film stands on its own and
is enjoyable, especially the lush imagery. Angela, it has your name written all
over it.
 
Best, Oscar




________________________________
From: pneski <PNeski@...>
To: terrencemalick@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:28:20 AM
Subject: Re: [terrencemalick] Re: Pitt, Penn, Dinosaurs


My Point is its silly to blow it up to IMax when you can show it in normal
theatres that have 70mm,That would look better
While 70mm is bigger and Better than 35mm .Imax should be Imax and not 70mm,

In a message dated 03/12/09 08:40:28 Eastern Daylight Time, christopherdevans@
ymail.com writes:
It's too early to know for sure if this is in IMAX format or shot in
65mm, though most things that have leaked out (and
this: http://www.paulatki ns.com/about_ paul.php? cat_id=29
<http://www.paulatki ns.com/about_ paul.php? cat_id=29> ) seem to
suggest the latter. Even if this is the case, it most certainly won't
look like a joke. When 65mm film is blown up to IMAX there is only a
magnification of 1.8, as opposed to 7.8 from 35mm film. While a 7.8
magnification level is obviously pretty big, 1.8 degree would be barely
noticeable (35mm to 70mm blowups were once common and those used a 4.4X
magnification) . Also, unlike 35mm it wouldn't require much digital
processing before IMAX presentation, if it needed any at all.
The one thing that worries me is that Paul Atkins is listing himself as
cinematographer, rather than Emmanuel Lubezki. It makes sense, based on
Atkins' record, if Voyage of Time is going to be shot in difficult
conditions more familiar for documentary filmmakers (which is what
it sounded like Malick was going for with Q), but all the same, I think
I'll miss Lubezki's beautiful images. Hopefully shoot part of the film
and they'll share DP credit? Maybe I'm being a little harsh on
Atkins, though. I haven't seen much of his work, but the storm sequences
he shot for Master and Commander are pretty magnificent. -Cde.
--- In terrencemalick@ yahoogroups. com, pneski <PNeski@...> wrote:
>
> so its fake Imax!!!,I just saw a Imax film and parts of it looked
35mm,Blown up to that size is a Joke!
>
>
>
> In a message dated 03/10/09 17:02:41 Eastern Daylight Time,
tomlowelion@ ... writes:
> The IMAX portion is being shot on 65mm.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]