Scary Movie 4

[Michel Hafner]

In short.

Because when you copy one picture with resulution x to a medium of resolution x (same resolution),

you get x/2 resolution, same goes for everything, telescopes, camera lenses, film printing, microscopes everything.

It's basic phisics of optical resolving power.

If the optics are the culprit how does changing the resolution of the copy improve overall resolution? ... I see. You need a higher MTF on the print film to keep the MTF of the negative.

Really? And why is that? Why would Kodak put cheaper technology in motion picture emulsions when it can

put the latest and the best, same goes vice versa.

The emulsion technology of still film and motion picture film pretty much goes in step. Ask John if you will.

It' s not the emulsion. It's what you do with it. Stills can have optimal exposure. Motion pictures are shot with exposure times limited to a narrow range (not too short to avoid jerky motion and not too long so you have your 24 frames a second) and things shot usually move. That brings detail often down compared to still photography.

Michel Hafner

Switzerland

Edited May 5, 2006 by miha

[barry david]

I saw this movie last night, unfortunately. First, let me say that I had no prior knowledge that this movie was the debut of the Genesis. In all honesty, I've read little about the camera. I just wanted to enjoy a finely crafted work where (spoiler!) a cat attacks a gigantic inflatable penis. Avante-garde film making at the cliff's edge. Thank you David Zucker.

 

Anyway, I agree with everyone who has stated that the initial scenes appear to be shot on film. But at some point, and I am uncertain as to where, the video cadence began. I actually looked over at my wife and said "That looks like video." It was one of those statements that wasn't so much a statement as it was a masked question needing verification and shared concern. Her perplexed eyes gazed at mine... blue pools of longing mixed with extraordinary confusion... and she said "I want some MilkDuds."

 

Video motion isn't something that I can get used to. It doesn't tango with my eyes properly. In all honesty I can say that what I saw was very reminiscent of Collateral. So similar, in fact, that one thought came to the front of my cortex: some of this was shot on a Viper. Sure, that's a knee-jerk assumption considering I never saw Collateral on the big screen, but many of the motion characteristics where there. The only thing that appeared off about my inference was the tonal range. It was phenomenal.

 

 

Hey Obie, I hope to read more of your comments because I cracked myself laughing at your reply! You have a great comedic way of expressing your thoughts. I love it! Gave me a break from all the hate replies going on. Thank you for brightening up my forum reading!

 

|x|barrydaivd|x|

Edited March 14, 2007 by barrydavid