monday sunnlinn

Wow, can't wait to see this....they should show the space station one together with this as a 3D double feature!

ok, wasn't expecting that form factor...kudos to them for thinking out of the box, well, make that thinking in the box... It would seem like making one of the lenses slide on the x-axis would be the next step.

I did some poking around after watching the video and adobe labs was all over the place...so I imagine it will be in After Effects at somepoint...

that is pretty impressive...I wonder how long until that makes it into after effects... thanks for the link!

the quality of the power the home depot gennies make is dangerous to sensitive electronics and lighting elements... this was informative for me... http://www.screenlightandgrip.com/html/ema...generators.html just keep in mind that a rental company posted this...so it might be somewhat biased...

this will definitely show how little I know about the internals of a good lens, but is it possible that the change in humidity of the air between the elements are actually moving the individual elements by changing the air pressure?

well, it's from hawaii, so maybe there were so many scantily clad women that they just couldn't be framed out of every shot...

So a personal sci-fi project involves CGI and spaceships, both on orbit and in interplanetary space. I'm curious as to what the set-up is for NASA and ESA when they shoot in space, I know IMAX is involved to an extent. A first, brief googling turned up nothing in depth. I plan to google some more, but I also imagine someone hear could point out some more esoteric or anecdotal info... I'm looking to recreate the look that these real world shots from NASA/ESA have in order to help with the suspension of disbelief as the writing is what I would call 'extrapolatory' sci-fi... I'm curious as to both film and HD video that they use, lenses, filters, cameras, filmstocks/codecs, tricks for exposing and fighting the earth's albedo..etc.. any help is greatly appreciated.... :-)

I've only seen the "Basterds" once, but I think there was much more style added in the DI than reservoir dogs, which looked bleak on the standard def DVD, very grey, looking at the screen grabs from the blu-ray makes me think that they remastered it and added that contrast for the blu-ray. As for the Basterds, I think they really punched up the reds some in post for effect(those 'natsi' banners jumped right off the screen, so did the theatre owners red dress as I recall). The whole look seemed to be going after the recent, old-timey, war movie, epic look with the super contrasty, slightly underexposed, gritty colors, but with certain colors emphasized at certain times for effect. as a personal note, I think the dialogue in this movie was probably some of the best I have seen in a long time...the opening conversation, wow...

I just saw a trailer for Repo....looked very interesting...it actually was more interesting than the movie it was before...which I didn't even finish...

if any cartoon should have been done as a complete CGI epic, it would have to be this one...I would rather watch an animated cobra commander than a real life version...is there even a cobra commander in this movie? or is this his backstory? Actually you know what...don't bother answering that, I just realized I don't care... :rolleyes: the only thing this movie has going for it at this point is that it probably won't be as bad as everyone is thinking it will be...I can only hope they put a "knowing is half the battle" PSA in the end credits...

Again, I've tried both and the panasonic wins. The EX-1 has bad jaggies on soft edged things... it's strictly due to the color. If you can record out of the HD-SDI from the EX-1, go for it...but if you could afford that set-up, you could just get a better camera than either probably...

I've owned both the EX-1 and the HPX-170. The HPX-170 wins hands down. The EX-1 works okay for hard edged objects, but that's about it. Other tips would be: - use the fastest shutter speed you can stand. - check out Conduit for keying...it's nodal based, cheap, has a plenty of tutorials and works wonders for keying, even on my frizzed out dreadlocks... Also if you are going for the panasonic route, HVX or HPX, try the neatvideo noise removal plug-in before you key it. It is the closest thing I've seen to magic in this world. If you don't want to use that plug-in try turning down the detail a little on the camera and turning up the coring some, this will reduce noise, but with a minimal amount of detail going away also. (That's why I prefer the neatvideo plug in...) :-) www.neatvideo.com http://www.dvgarage.com/prod/prod.php?prod=conduit2

LOL I'd be curious to see what details I overlooked after being shot into space on what at the time was the largest rocket ever built, then travel for 4 days in a tin can. Land said tin can on another celestial object, then, while in a rigid spacesuit, manage to bounce around on a surface with 1/6th the gravity of earth... I'm amazed he remembered to remove the lenscap.. :-)

I though it would have gone without saying that the artist would choose the best medium that is within their budget. I guess I was wrong. I'm not judging film, I think film is superior to the red or the viper or genesis (i wasn't talking about a film out from prosumer cameras that's ridiculous)...I just don't have the means to afford to learn and shoot with it. I think you are intentionally looking for an argument. I didn't say digital was better than film. To clarify my position further. The difference in the final print for projection between the best digital and film is so small after the DI that if the average viewer has time or attention to even notice, then the content probably needs some work. sorry for the confusion.

I don't really care what I'm called as long as they spell the name right on the check... but, if we're splitting hairs... personally, I can say with 99% certainty that I will never shoot with film, not because I am biased one way or the other...I just have zero experience with it and I can achieve the same results (to the end viewer) with a far less expensive process overall, now that digital cameras are becoming available at a reasonable price point. So I use the term Digital Cinematography or Digi-Cin when I'm in a hurry, to describe what I do. remember, to the viewer, it's the content that's important, not how it was acquired. I've never heard someone not in the business say that they wouldn't go see a movie because it wasn't shot with Kodak film or there was substandard grip equipment...

I mean quality of cinematography and how well it was transferred to blu-ray...story quality is far too subjective and not really a concern in this instance...I just want to see stunning images on a stunning screen... another interesting aside to this thread... I recently saw a HDTV at costco which as a 240 hz refresh rate...unfortunately they were playing a CGI cartoon movie, it looked almost 3D with that much information. My grilfriend loved it, I was less enthusiastic, I am concerned how actual movies shot at 24FPS would look....

Alright, I've given up on trying to find a theatre in Boston that actually has quality projection... Might as well get a home theatre(prices for HDTV's are almost to the point that I would be willing to spend for it)...the next question... What are the ultimate must have Blu-Ray discs for playing on the HDTV? I'm only speaking in terms of cinematography AND availability...

the photography looks great, and so does Megan Fox.... some funny lines in there too... Not usually into horror anymore as it's become "torture porn" as my girlfriend likes to call it...but this looks pretty funny...

well, there were a lot of fun things transforming and exploding... I don't always go to a movie hoping to have my intellectual horizons expanded. (only about 95% of the time). I at least expected nothing more than visceral eye-candy...but the twin robots really did ruin it for me... So if the sound hadn't been on, I probably would have liked it better...

I think everyone is still trying to figure out if they liked it or not... I am... My problem was I couldn't actually see it because it was so out of focus in the theatre I saw it in...plus it skipped the end of the scene...well I won't go any further, it would be a spoiler... Astonishingly, it's already made almost 400 million worldwide... I enjoyed the first one so much, I was literally sweating, but then that was in Florida and the theatre was literally packed full...

So I lived in Orlando for a long time and had the benefit of having Universal Studios AMC Theatres about 5 minutes from my house. I moved up to Boston about 18 months ago and have been hard pressed to find a theatre that understands that you're actually supposed to focus the projector and make sure it's not keystoning. Even the Boston Commons AMC is hit or miss depending on which screen it is. Given the ridiculous price of that place, I generally don't go there. But I've been challenged to find another theatre that plays some of the bigger movies and bothers to take the time to make sure they're in focus. I live in Davis Square and literally can walk to the Somerville Theatre in 5 minutes. Their main screen has the worst keystoning I've seen in my entire life and I've been to a lot of different theatres in a lot of different states. The bottom left corner is sticking out by about 2 feet. In that case, I'm not sure if it's the screen itself or the projector. I'm actually thinking about asking them to let me try and fix it for them...I doubt I could make it worse. I went to see Transformers 2 a theatre at the Fresh Pond Mall near the Alewife T stop. I think it was DLP because I could see the individual RGB channels phase in and out of focus. Not sure if I liked the movie or not as I couldn't really see it. Plus it skipped at one point... Ughhh...

i have one of these for my nikon d200...

I should probably be going to sleep, but I'm going to weigh-in on this one too. By the way..... SPOILER ALERT!!!! Let's think about the ensign to captain part for the moment. Above all else what quality does the Captain of a Starship need to have? Good Judgement. When you can manage interstellar travel in a reasonable timeframe, you've just stepped into the Great Wide Open. When you're dealing with novel and dangerous situations, your situational awareness has to reach beyond logic and understanding. Pike promoted Kirk to first officer because Kirk's instincts were spot on. By this point Kirk has also demonstrated to Pike an indomitable will and enough intelligence to back that up, barely. Kirk had also managed to have enough fortune on his side to get him on the Enterprise in the first place, which was something in and of itself. As for giving Kirk the Enterprise...Maybe he did graduate between the end of the last fight and his commission, the lack of evidence does not prove a negative. Maybe they just ran out of time in the final cut. More importantly, he did just save a planet, not entirely on his own, but his part was pivotal in bringing all the people together on one ship in just the nick of time to do it...AND commanding them in a life or death situation for billions of people against odds that were most definitely not in his favor... There are such things as battlefield commissions for a reason. As for Checkov being 17, I think Pike had a lot of leeway in selecting the crew for his Flagship. If I was Pike and there was someone as talented as Checkov in the academy, I'd grab him too, even if he was 12, he can learn all the starfleet protocols and reg's after his shift ends on the bridge. You could argue that as a teenager he doesn't have enough life experience to really understand the situation and to that I'd argue that I don't want him to understand the situation, he'd probably freeze in terror if he did... Over all I think the look and feel of space in this movie was perfect, the only movie that I felt sold it even more was "Sunshine". I thought the design of the enterprise was a more realistic 'muscle car' version. A little more beefy than the original version, much more suitable to the baddest ship that humanity could field. I really liked the way the weapons system's function was portrayed. It somehow came across that they were intelligent algorithm based sequences, like you'd program moving lights to do, but still capable of human direction. And the scene were the crew-woman get's sucked out into space through the hole in the side of the Kelvin was awesome too...The sound in this movie was definitely not overlooked. The only thing I didn't like about the flares was that the CGI ones didn't quite live up to the optical ones. That was the only time I actually noticed them consciously. I agree that they should have comped in real ones. The second time I saw it I started to notice too much extreme zooms with shaky cameras. However, when directing a movie, you have to take into account all the various mediums it will be seen on. Nowadays, a T.V. or computer screen is more than likely how the majority of the viewings will take place over the years. So I kind of think that the you have to split the difference on that call. As for the moral questions. If the scene at the end where Kirk and Spock don't think twice about letting Nero die is in question.... hmmm... They're still young and... the guy just destroyed Vulcan and was about to destroy Earth...I'm surprised they even offered. It showed a great deal of maturity for Kirk to even think of how that might help to keep diplomacy alive with the Romulans...

thank you for clarifying... I agree with you about DLP cinemas, I used to live in Orlando, and would go to the movies at Universal Studios. They had one there and it wasn't that amazing...I'm glad they didn't charge extra for it... I'm not a big fan of the Red's hype either, but I'll sure be happy to have one of their cameras... :)