Behind the Scenes B-Roll Footage of "Fury" Starring Brad Pitt

In this World War II period piece a steeled tank commander (Brad Pitt) and his crew of five men trek past enemy lines to attack the Germans when they least expect it. Fury was shot on Panavision Panaflex Millennium XL2 cameras using Panavision lenses. What I do love about this particular b-roll is that they show you what the raw footage looks like on the monitors that the director reviews before any post processing is done to it. You can catch Fury in theaters now.

Via: Movies Coming Soon 

Rebecca Britt's picture

Rebecca Britt is a South Texas based commercial, architectural and concert photographer. When she's not working Rebecca enjoys spending time with her two daughters, playing Diablo III, and shooting concerts (Electronic Dance Music). Rebecca also runs the largest collective of EDM (electronic dance music) photographers on social media.

Log in or register to post comments

Amazing film. Go watch it

Large productions like this are admittedly a segment of our industry I know almost nothing about so here's my dumb question.

If they're using film cameras how are they watching video on monitors?

Though I'm not overly familiar with 35mm film cameras, I believe the modern camera systems allow for a digitized output to a monitor while shooting (to check framing and critical focus and whatnot). This is the same concept as an 8mm camera I owned which had available connections to be hooked up to a TV for review. So, while the feed itself is on real film, the camera system allows for a digital preview on the built in screen and other monitors. :)

Until a few years ago most of the big motion pictures were shot exclusively on 35mm filmstock. All "modern" filmcameras - I put that in quotes because digital cameras like Arri Alexa and Red Epic, etc.. have diminished their use significantly in the past few years - have and have had a system called video assist. Here from Arri (not so familiar with Panavision though):

This is an extra optical output that feeds a videocamera for video playback directly from the ground glass. That has been the standard in the filmindustry for the past 20 years since I am in the business (and longer). Although in recent years the use of film cameras is in steep decline (Nolan, Tarantino and others still refuse to shoot digital) there were some advancements in the video assist technology. They even offer HD now (see link above).

But to my knowledge this video feed is only usable to judge the framing and - sometimes - acting (depends on the resolution). In the 90s and early 2000s it was nearly impossible to judge focus let alone exposure. It was mostly to see afterwards what was captured (if the video operator did not forget to press record on the external recorder) and maybe judge the overall blocking of the shot. Mostly the director stood near the camera to watch the actors up close. The DoP/Operator (depends on the working system in each country) was there to check focus and framing. The 1st AD was measuring the focus but was never quite sure if he hit it or not until the operator told him after the shot.
To my knowledge the HD video assist is still not really 100% usable for focus checking but that is not so relevant in the future anyway. Mostly.

This has all changed with digital. Now "video assist" is in full HD and more because it feeds directly of the camera signal itself. Even though an external recorder is mostly used to check the footage to not "tinker" with the orginal material on the camera capture card too much and the director is able to interact directly with the video operator without hassling the camera crew while they prepare the next setup.
The flipside is that now everyone feels invited to not only check focus but also to judge everything. That is also part of the problem of all discussions because everyone now has an opinion and oftentimes utters them. From the trainee to the make up girl. That often leads to confusion or at least unneccessary discussions with the director/producer/decider. Still a film (project) should not be a democratic process. Otherwise it leads to boring results.

So in my opinion everything has its advantages and disadvantages. Digital looks much cleaner without heavy postproduction. If I were to shoot a period piece in which all motion pictures were shot on film I would also consider using filmstock to recreate the atmosphere more faithfully. For a modern action blockbuster or a 3D movie the preferred choice would be mostly digital because the stability of the frame is of utmost importance. But even Michael Bay - to this day - shoots mainly on film and they convert it to 3D in post. So everything depends on the directors/DOPs choice, the budget, the mood of the film and many other factors...

Timecode is another reason, and really the most important. All the "film" editing is done with the digital footage on digital editors. Once all the editing is finalized and signed-off, they start cutting the film. This is how Avid came to be back in the late 80s.

Since I was a tank driver before I became a photographer I had to see this one. Loved it! Beautiful shot's, great light and toning btw. If you want a good solid story and brutal firefights, (heads blown of, people run over and tracers coming to you so hard you dive away in cinema). watch it!