21 Grams at DVinfo.net

Neo Castillo · February 8th, 2004, 01:50 PM

I just happend to watch 21 Grams this weekend. I love the look of the movie.

My question is: Was this filmed on video or film?

I loke like possibley film on 16mm, because i did notice that it didnt fill the whole screen. but it could be a hd video format or something too. Anyone know?

Matthew Groff · February 8th, 2004, 03:40 PM

My guess would be Super 16.

mg

Rob Belics · February 8th, 2004, 08:17 PM

Shot in 35mm film.

Evan Kubota · February 10th, 2004, 12:17 AM

I love this movie. I agree that it was 35mm. They played with the lighting and used filters to get the desaturated, blown out look. Excellent.

The shot where it panned over Benicio Del Toro sitting at the empty pool with the cover lying at the bottom and sand blowing in was amazing.

Tavis Shaver · February 10th, 2004, 12:38 AM

I liked the look of this movie also, i didn't think it was as good as the hype machine had me believing. This is only my opinion, i'm not being a troll at all, i liked the movie but i think that i would've probably liked it a lot more had i not heard what a good movie it was before i saw it. Expectations were a bit too high i guess.

this is only my OPINION tho, that's all.

edit: Benicio was fantastic as always tho.

John Hudson · February 10th, 2004, 09:44 PM

Here are some details for you Neo on 21 Grams!

Arri 35mm Moviecam SL
1:85

Kodak Vision 250D 5246
Kodak Vision 500T 5279 (Night INT shots)
Kodak Vision 800T 5289 & 5279

Still photos by Laura Letinsky, Sebasto Salgado, Nan Goldin and Willaim Eggleson were used as reference.

Bleach bypass

11 Week shooting schedule
$20 Million budget

Robert Knecht Schmidt · February 10th, 2004, 09:46 PM

And if you still don't believe it was shot on film, just listen carefully to the soundtrack. The clickety-whir of the camera's drive is clearly audible in closeup shots in confined spaces (the scenes that take place in bedrooms, for example).

Rob Belics · February 10th, 2004, 10:31 PM

Couple of things. Arri doesn't make the MovieCam. It's made by, uh, MovieCam.

Second, you pretty much have to have your ear up to the body to hear anything much less a clickety-clack. It must have been something else.

John Hudson · February 10th, 2004, 11:03 PM

Thanks for the correction, uh, Rob.

Does Moviecam still exist? I read where Arri purchased them leading to the creation of the Arricam. Which is essentially the same camera.

Anyway. Sue me.

Rob Belics · February 11th, 2004, 01:33 AM

Yep, I forgot about that. They combined factories in Europe to make the Arricam. But if it's a MovieCam then it's not an Arricam. Those just came out last year I think. But I'm pretty sure they used a MovieCam.

My lawyer will be in touch.

Charles Papert · February 11th, 2004, 02:26 AM

Actually, the SL is a lovely light camera for handheld and Steadicam, but it is a bit noisy, certainly more so than the Moviecam Compact. You can definitely hear it without putting your head up to it, and I don't doubt that in the spaces Robert Knecht Schmidt described it could have been a problem--I'm just surprised it wasn't notched out in the sound mix.

The Arricam LT and ST (roughly comparable to the Compact and the SL in concept) are like Moviecam form factors with Arri skins and a combination of electronics. Very nice cameras. I like what Arri is up to these days--I'll now forgive them for the 535 (dreadfully cumbersome) and 535B (more acceptable, but still overbuilt). Arri's current viewing optics are the best, even though I'm a Panavision fan overall.

To keep on subject--I thought 21 Grams had a ballsy look, but to be honest I'm not that enthralled with having to stare at moles and wrinkles on a 40 foot screen. I think the look informed the film appropriately, it's just a look I can only take in small doses (or on smaller screens).

John Hudson · February 11th, 2004, 11:02 AM

I for one love the bleach bypass look!

February 8th, 2004, 01:50 PM	#1
Neo Castillo Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: San Antonio, Texas Posts: 66	21 Grams I just happend to watch 21 Grams this weekend. I love the look of the movie. My question is: Was this filmed on video or film? I loke like possibley film on 16mm, because i did notice that it didnt fill the whole screen. but it could be a hd video format or something too. Anyone know?

February 10th, 2004, 09:46 PM	#7
Robert Knecht Schmidt Wrangler Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Posts: 1,933	And if you still don't believe it was shot on film, just listen carefully to the soundtrack. The clickety-whir of the camera's drive is clearly audible in closeup shots in confined spaces (the scenes that take place in bedrooms, for example). __________________ All the best, Robert K S Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| The best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

February 11th, 2004, 02:26 AM	#11
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Actually, the SL is a lovely light camera for handheld and Steadicam, but it is a bit noisy, certainly more so than the Moviecam Compact. You can definitely hear it without putting your head up to it, and I don't doubt that in the spaces Robert Knecht Schmidt described it could have been a problem--I'm just surprised it wasn't notched out in the sound mix. The Arricam LT and ST (roughly comparable to the Compact and the SL in concept) are like Moviecam form factors with Arri skins and a combination of electronics. Very nice cameras. I like what Arri is up to these days--I'll now forgive them for the 535 (dreadfully cumbersome) and 535B (more acceptable, but still overbuilt). Arri's current viewing optics are the best, even though I'm a Panavision fan overall. To keep on subject--I thought 21 Grams had a ballsy look, but to be honest I'm not that enthralled with having to stare at moles and wrinkles on a 40 foot screen. I think the look informed the film appropriately, it's just a look I can only take in small doses (or on smaller screens). __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

February 8th, 2004, 03:40 PM	#2
Matthew Groff Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: New York, NY Posts: 132	My guess would be Super 16. mg

February 8th, 2004, 08:17 PM	#3
Rob Belics Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 581	Shot in 35mm film.

February 10th, 2004, 12:17 AM	#4
Evan Kubota Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Gainesville, FL Posts: 47	I love this movie. I agree that it was 35mm. They played with the lighting and used filters to get the desaturated, blown out look. Excellent. The shot where it panned over Benicio Del Toro sitting at the empty pool with the cover lying at the bottom and sand blowing in was amazing.

February 10th, 2004, 12:38 AM	#5
Tavis Shaver Major Player Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Vancouver, BC. Canada Posts: 209	I liked the look of this movie also, i didn't think it was as good as the hype machine had me believing. This is only my opinion, i'm not being a troll at all, i liked the movie but i think that i would've probably liked it a lot more had i not heard what a good movie it was before i saw it. Expectations were a bit too high i guess. this is only my OPINION tho, that's all. edit: Benicio was fantastic as always tho.

February 10th, 2004, 09:44 PM	#6
John Hudson Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: 32° 44' N 117° 10' W Posts: 820	Here are some details for you Neo on 21 Grams! Arri 35mm Moviecam SL 1:85 Kodak Vision 250D 5246 Kodak Vision 500T 5279 (Night INT shots) Kodak Vision 800T 5289 & 5279 Still photos by Laura Letinsky, Sebasto Salgado, Nan Goldin and Willaim Eggleson were used as reference. Bleach bypass 11 Week shooting schedule $20 Million budget

February 10th, 2004, 10:31 PM	#8
Rob Belics Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 581	Couple of things. Arri doesn't make the MovieCam. It's made by, uh, MovieCam. Second, you pretty much have to have your ear up to the body to hear anything much less a clickety-clack. It must have been something else.

February 10th, 2004, 11:03 PM	#9
John Hudson Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: 32° 44' N 117° 10' W Posts: 820	Thanks for the correction, uh, Rob. Does Moviecam still exist? I read where Arri purchased them leading to the creation of the Arricam. Which is essentially the same camera. Anyway. Sue me.

February 11th, 2004, 01:33 AM	#10
Rob Belics Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 581	Yep, I forgot about that. They combined factories in Europe to make the Arricam. But if it's a MovieCam then it's not an Arricam. Those just came out last year I think. But I'm pretty sure they used a MovieCam. My lawyer will be in touch.

February 11th, 2004, 11:02 AM	#12
John Hudson Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: 32° 44' N 117° 10' W Posts: 820	I for one love the bleach bypass look!