Paul Bruening

The link's working for me now. Congratulations on your rig. Do you know what the light and dark rolling banding is from?

I noticed in Jarred's profile that he didn't have any friends. That's really sad. So, I sent him a friend's request so he won't feel lonely.

You know what? I think I'm gonna' go over and sign up at reduser.

Hey Erik, All I got was black screen on the Vimeo link.

If done carefully and enough control is available in the projectors it can create a sufficient illusion of doubling the resolution. That means you can push the image onto a bigger screen and compensate for the single projector's lower light levels and resolution. If the viewer's brain falls for it and the two cheaper projectors are up to the job, it's not a crazy way to do things. It can be done with three projectors as well (one offset 1/2 pixel vertically and one offset 1/2 pixel horizontally). I tested it with crummy SXGA projectors and got some interesting results even with ancient BenQ DLPs. They weren't up to the task but got pretty close. I could only test a still image as well.

I think I may see what you're asking about. I'll try an answer and you can tell me if it is what you were looking for: Each format has a lens range that is commonly called "normal." A normal lens is one that makes a picture look closer to how the human eye sees things. In the 35mm cine format (not anamorphic) a lens in the range of 32mm to 50mm in length is considered normal (most natural). In 35mm still camera format a 50mm lens is considered normal. In 16mm cine format, a 1 inch or something around a 24mm lens is considered normal. Is that useful? If so, we can explain why "normal" lens lengths are considered normal. Also, we understand that you come from a country with different naming systems from ours. But, can you change your name listing to something with a separate first and last name?

Looks like a realtime rig in HD. Have you set it up for high res captures? Looking forward to some images.

I haven't seen the film. I'll have to be careful not to stick my foot in my mouth, here. I would like to say that B&W and color are significantly different methods of imaging that require different philosophies of light and dark. I consider them, in comparison, as different as poetry and prose. As they say, "Never let a newspaper hack pretend to be a poet." Maybe, it's not as extreme as that. But, I think that it is like a different dialect of the same language. You can certainly get by in either dialect, but you can't speak eloquently in B&W if all you've ever spoken is color. Just opinion.

John, An incredible contribution to not only fellow C.com members but to REDusers and scared-back-to-film users everywhere. Thanks for all that work and for being such a giving person to simply hand it all to us.

Keep us informed with a daily journal in an "In Production" thread, Zack. If it all pans out, you'll be a part of that history in-the-making.

I agree, Phil. Imagine how much real time flow could be handled if distributed fully over the resources of a dual-quad core mobo with 4 slots of 16X SLI running the latest smokin' cards. It would probably take 2X 1,000W PS to drive it (not to mention melting the guts out of the average 15A wall socket). But the coding for that... sheesh!

I've got 9 of those PAR 64 cans. That's what I did to mine. Bail blocks.

.

Has anyone else tried a football? I don't know if that's their real name in the industry or just a local term. We used them on Filmos in school back in my "way back". It's not anything more than 4" thick or thicker upholstery foam that we stole'ded out of junked-out sofa cushions and a whole lotta' duct tape. You can go the extra distance and tape a bit of glass to the front for TTL noise. That foam and a thick, outer layer of duct tape ate most all of the noise from the Filmos. Obviously, it was a cheap way to blimp. Looked like genuine crap, though. It won't impress anyone.

Hey Richard, I was doing some casual math in my head following some old industry standard formulas. If they've pulled 2 bil. in box already. Cameron's cut of 16.66% of that comes out to 321 mil. Even though his worldwide distribution messes up the after-box formula, I'm still using it here. His after-box take would double his box take and put him at 642 mil. in about 10 years or so. Sure, the numbers don't fall fair for the producer given that he/they are the original risk takers in any film's life. But, 642 mi. ain't bad. That's a lot of fried chicken by anyone's measure.

The metal blimp for the IIC is unbelievable. You can't hear anything of that IIC. Like most things German, it was way over-designed. Though, I must admit, when it was made there was little form of noise reduction in post other than hardware pass filters and EQs. I'd sit and look at that blimp and think to myself, "All that for a blimp?!"

Some time back, while exploring various film framing and format questions, some of the members came up with a Techniscope stacked approach. It would take some crazy image bouncing and polarization manipulation. But a normal 4-perf movement with 2 techniscope frames exposed through one lens could deliver 3D at far better image quality than two video cameras strapped together. The limitation would be the convergence issue. IIRC, I think that was solved by running two identical lenses and then doing the minor bouncing to get the images in the stack. Generally, the idea was that any normal 4-perf camera could take the 3D lens package and come through with stunning 35mm photography. But, you know, ideas are easy. Working designs are hard.

See? It's a good thing you post here. That way, someone can tell you it's your birthday. Otherwise, how would you know? Man, you need us. You love us. Oh, and Happy Birthday!

I wish Edgardo commercial success. I would also like to take this opportunity to ask forum members: Why is the "zombie" theme so prevalent and successful? I recall from my childhood being profoundly moved by Night of the Living Dead. As I grew up I came to understand how it spoke to me about human nature and the way we all psychologically "consume" one another. But, I don't know if zombie movies speak that to everyone or just me. There has to be something deep inside the genre that comments on us and our fears or it wouldn't keep popping up in popular culture (slight pun barely intended). Who's got an idea on this? I really do want to "get this" persistent theme.

While pictorial, my presentations are as valid as any other written, verbiage presented by anyone else as comment on movie technology. I don't take 3D as seriously as other people, just as is the case of some other members of this forum. Further, pictorial editorials do not, automatically, violate forum rules and practice. Whereas, your efforts to gain free advertising through thread presentations are a violation. You may, of course, purchase advertising space from Mr. Tyler as other commercial entities have done (witness the right side of your browser). As well, if someone attacks your technology, I'm sure forum members would enjoy your support and defense of it on technical grounds as is allowed for other technical creators such as Mr. Jannard.

Better lights are better, if you have the luxury of a choice. If you're on a thin dime and need a lot of light for cheap, those PAR 64, aluminum cans are really useful. You can't adjust the beam except by changing the lamps, which is a pain. But, if you're not terribly picky about your beam and don't mind sliding scrims in and out, they're quite usable. Did I mention that they are cheap? They are the most useful, powerful and flicker-free light by the penny out there.

Both?

.

.

Right. Right. I was so busy patting myself on the back for the slopes/sloops pun that I didn't proof read the bubble. Even the Wagner picture couldn't make me feel any less sthupit.