Ruairi Robinson

This is only a problem in your head. Now go back to sleep.

Yes, everyone knows what the novel was called. The correct title for the movie, is what the movie is called, not what the novel was called.

what the hell are you talking about?

The part I don't understand is the part where you say "never" right after saying "barring unforeseen technological developments" So why bother with the "never" part? "Republicans will NEVER take over the white house again. Unless they get enough votes!" R.

"Never"? So... you are saying that there is no possibility that anyone, ever, between now and the end of time, could conceive of a digital device that could ever, ever, ever be better than film. Ever. Film is like a hundred years old, give or take, but Regardless of what unforeseen technological developments that may occur in the next trillion years, it will never be better by digital technology. Never. EVER. Just so we're clear. R.

I think that the only people that hate CGI are ones that don't know how to use it well. But I guess that's a lot of people. CGI looks totally real if you know how to use it. CGI looks totally fake if you don't know the technology well, or don't know how to express what you want well. So blame the tools if you like, its an easy bandwagon to jump on. Everyone is doing it. It's the latest trend! R.

Why do you keep banging on about 720p? Its too bloody soft. Its not good enough. R.

Uhm... so have you ever seen either film shot in Todd AO 65mm projected at 30fps? Still waiting.

Correct. Ninjas rock, whereas on the other hand, pirates suck balls. R.

So two films, ever have been shot in this format... two not particularly GOOD films I might add. (Have you seen Around the World in 80 days, or Oklahoma projected in 70mm at 30fps?) And every single film shot in this format subsequently was shot at 24fps. If you have NOT seen them projected in this format, then you are not qualified to make a judgement call on what blows away what. Have you? Your imagination of what you reckon they might have looked like does not count. For starters I reject the basic premise/assumption you make in your arguments. You are coming from the point of view that faster frame rates are necessarily better. No they **(obscenity removed)**ing aren't. 24fps has been fine for the last 100 bloody years. I never heard anyone say "yeah the action scenes in Saving Private Ryan were okay... but they would have been better at 30 fps...." Well you might. But you are living in a cuckoo clock. R.

Uhhmm... I'm trying to comprehend what criteria you are using as a basis for judgment. Please. Explain. I'm curious if you also feel that 16mm blows 35mm out of the water, or that 8mm blows 16mm away, or that shooting on miniDV is better than shooting on red, or pixelvision kicks the F35s ass...? Is VHS better than blu-ray? Is a 286 processor better than an 8 core I7? Which are better, ninjas or pirates? R.

It looked okay. Same would have looked better on film. In My Humble Opinion.

"Poop"? Ugh. There's a word I would never use, ever. If this forums gonna censor what I say, I'd rather it just uses "****"s instead of CHANGING what I say. R.

I thought the Genesis stuff looked poop, and did not intercut well at all with anamorphic. It looked Fugly in comparison. Horrible skin tones. In fact, I think everything I've seen shot on Genesis has looked poop, except stuff that went for an obviously over the top look, where you could hide artifacts (like Planet Terror, which looked pretty convincing in a B movie sort of way) R.

Film is not the only way to shoot 48fps. Don't be silly. R.

He already made it clear that he wrote the script. R.

I means that the longest, most complex frame in the entire project took 72 hours to render, but even in the same shot, every other frame took less time, and spread across a render farm of 2000 or so machines, it made no appreciable difference to the deadline, whatsoever. In a sequence of 1000 frames (however unlikely that Bay holds any shot for that long) the whole thing would render in 36 hours at worst. Probably much less. Also it means that whoever set up the render didn't do a very good of optimizing the scene. This used to be something VFX people bragged about, I'm surprised they still bother. Re: D9 Whatever little flaws you can nitpick at, at least they made the movie they wanted to make, and didn't bow to pressure to soft-pedal it or whatever. You gotta admire that. I loved the film. I thought it was the best sci fi action movie I've seen in a long, long time. Blomkamp is a really talented guy, and deserves all the success he will undoubtedly receive. Best, R.

You mean like the "director's cut" of Alien 3, that Fincher had nothing to do with? R.

Yeah, Kubrick totally dropped the ball on that one. What a loser. If only they had made it a mission to saturn instead of Jupiter, that would have made the story a million times better. Imagine changing a mission from Saturn to Jupiter? What kind of moron would do that? Any idiot knows that missions to Saturn are way cooler than missions to Jupiter. Sheesh. And nuclear explosions used as rockets would have totally made the ending profound, in a way that would have touched the souls of all of mankind and changed the how films are made, and stories are told, and the way people think, for all eternity. Silly Kubrick, interfering in his own story. What a buffoon! R. (with apologies to the original poster, I sympathize, truly.)

Yeah, and how come they don't put training wheels on Ducati's? R.

Aww you guys. Group hug! R.

Only a small spot on your retina (fovea) has a high density of photoreceptors. But unless you clamp your eyeballs in place with needles, your eyes can look at any part of an imax screen at any time, so every single part of the screen has to equal or higher to the resolution of of your foveal vision, in order for an imax image to be perceptually equal to your vision. Make sense? So for Imax to be "equal" to the resolution of your eyes, it kinda has to be way, way, way higher. Also, depends how close you sit to the screen :) R.

Nobody in the industry is realistically looking to Maxivision as the format of the future. The problem is, regardless of the cost of projector upgrades, the stock is twice the cost. But not twice as good. Kinda hard to sell that to producer who cant tell the difference anyway (try explaining why anamorphic looks *subjectively* better, if you want to see comical glazed over expressions) And no major filmmaker I am aware of has publicly supported the format. So it's going nowhere. Done. Kaputt. Didn't you get the memo? The future is digital, man. In fact, the only person still banging on about this format publicly seems to be Roger Ebert. R.

Maybe your eyes work differently to mine, but through my eyes, highlights do not clip. and skintones generally look pretty natural (unless there is terrible umpa lumpa makeup involved) Also a problem with the video look, is that the refresh of the camera is not synched to the refresh of your eyes, so that video smear look when a camera moves fast is completely exaggerated compared to the way you see it with your eyes, as it is not in lockstep with your head movement - so you notice it much more. So saying the video look is closer to how your eyes see, is kinda bunk. In some ways yeah, in some ways not so much. Imax at 60fps is closer to how your eyes see. Because you don't see as many artifacts of the process (grain/smeary motion/noise/clipping etc) so there is less of a veil between you and the image. You don't have to try to focus THROUGH it. In My Humble Opinion. R.

Its not purely because they were shot with digital cameras. It's because it does not look good, and Mann has demonstrated, with Heat, with the Insider, etc. etc that he is capable of creating amazing images. So it feels like a step sideways for him, in my opinion. There are high benchmarks for direct comparison, from the same filmmaker. I have no idea where this stuff about worship of mediocrity comes from, if you are responding to my post, and by implication ascribing this position to me. Best, R.