Good day, good evening and good night all together,
would like to ask whether someone tell me where can I get technical details such as name of the film material used, etc., to Die Hard 1-3 can get. Perhaps synonymous someone can give me a general statement or technical literature on the appearance of shooting from the 80s (eg, Predator) are located or what it has, that the films look like what they look like: So washy etc. Thank you in advance for any help and adopted me with the same words as above
Antwort von raymaker:
Cameras, etc. to get on IMDB.
Antwort von Lobsang:
Raymaker Hi, thanks for your answer. Have there been among the technical specs compatriots, however, is generally only 35mm. Which Camera and materials used, etc. is not in much detail. Are you perhaps have other sources? Thank you
Antwort von Axel:
For "Die Hard" from another thread: [quote]
Be noted: with the simplest means is a high-quality look hardly feasible. The look itself is still not a good story, but that's just not so: Depth of field is an optical "phenomenon" which is very difficult faken can (if it is desired - there are quite synonymous projects where a high depth is desired).
Until around the end of the 60s was even blur the picture as a bad crafts. In large productions, it is hard to find. The optics were faint, it had to with lots of light will be lit. As with a typical aperture of F3.5 anyway no significant Schärfenuntiefe / depth blur could be achieved, the cameraman put everything out by adding the light Aperture still next to close. How disastrous a little blur on 35mm at high projection can now get the HDV filmmakers an idea. Greater resolution = hard to focus.
Only with fast lenses, as we know them today in our bright Videocams installed have started synonymous in Hollywood shooting the tentative deal with fuzziness intended as a tool, not as a stylistic device.
The first film, which is almost exclusively (and obviously very aware of) so that work is not so old. It was at that time only viewers with photographically trained eye to all the other accepted it as perfectly natural, found no more than that the movie had a cool look. The motive was mostly in oil, bloody square skull, the s.and to Yippie Ya Yeah, you pig jaw growled. The film school did.
Who does not believe, look at the bond from the previous year, The Living Daylights, on, or any older. And then License To Kill (1989).
Theme was the depth.
Many films from the 70s to see today pale, because the footage, Ektacolor, faded with time, which of course only "with time," remarked. Has the negative improperly stored, it was the salad. So it was, inter alia, Star Wars Episode IV (EDIT: This is in IMDb as "Technicolor" that means, but probably the 70mm theatrical prints. Color Technicolor was a procedure of three SW-negatives, which is a permanently established, the wind is always nor colorful), prior to the WA only had to be digitally colored, the colors were almost gone. At the time of their films, but had no significant "look" like him Tarantino and Rodriguez in Grindhouse make. Magic Bullet The entire repertoire is a misunderstanding.
Antwort von Quadruplex:
Antwort von Lobsang:
the article on Spiegel Online had only a brief overview of the character of John McLane / Gruber and a bissl production. Synonymous axel would agree that the faded material is a factor. Would you a movie from the 80s still the basis of other factors, that is, colors / lighting, etc. recognize? So, except of clothes and hairstyles, etc.