Ravi Kiran

Anthology Film Archives in NY is showing "The Love Witch" on 35mm on Thursday July 13th, as part of a double feature with Anna Biller's film "Viva."

For the interview-based videos I've done, I usually shot the interviews in 4K and finished in 1080 so I can add slow zooms or punch in for close-ups. For narrative work a post-zoom would only be a last resort to be used rarely, if at all. If you want the benefits of oversampling without having a ton of data, you could use a camera with a higher resolution sensor that records at 1080 or 2K.

"Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" was mostly shot with spherical lenses and switched to anamorphic for the fight scenes. "Spectre" - The opening sequence in Mexico was shot with spherical lenses and the rest of the film was anamorphic. The night scenes were shot on the Alexa 65 with Primo 70 lenses.

Is negative flashing something that be recreated in the DI fairly easily with an unflashed negative or is it better/easier to do it to the negative?

Watched this last night. Beautifully shot film. It has a soft, dream-like quality, but it still feels immediate and tangible. I particularly loved the the lighting in the British interiors, where the light doesn't fall perfectly on the subjects, and often there's barely any light on them at all. Many of the shots seemed to be on the razor's edge of underexposure. And that ending, wow.

Miracles - Panavision Platinum cameras configured for 3-perf pulldown and C-series anamorphic lenses (4x3 extraction, 16x9 protection) Cinematographer Ernest Holzman, ASC explores the existence of Miracles in modern-day society Fear the Walking Dead - Alexa Mini with Panavision B-Series anamorphics (16x9 extraction) McDonough Brings Anamorphic Look to Fear the Walking Dead True Detective season 2 - Arri Alexa with B-series, C-series, and E-series lenses (16x9 extraction) THE LENSES MAKE THE LOOK ON TRUE DETECTIVE Also from this thread:

"Larry Sanders Show" was shot on 16mm, mostly at 24fps, but they would switch to 30fps whenever there were TV monitors in the scene. The talk show within the show was shot on video, probably at 60i.

It depends on what what you're shooting and what your deliverables are. At my last job I shot commercials, and I shot most of them at 1080, but for certain bigger projects I shot at 4K to have the flexibility to reframe or add zoom-ins/outs. Never had a problem editing 4K ProRes on my MacBook. For 4K H.264 drone shots I transcoded for smoother playback.

I believe the filmed segments of Kids in the Hall were shot at 30fps.

3D will be around for a while theatrically, though it doesn't seem like many people are clamoring for 3D at home. People don't decide to buy TVs because a new feature has been introduced. They buy them if their old set degrades or stops working, and their new sets will simply happen to be HD or have whatever feature is standard at the time. Look how long SDTVs lingered in people's homes after the introduction of HDTV. Artistically 3D has potential, though it always felt more like a studio imposition or an afterthought. It doesn't seem like that many directors were interested in experimenting with it, which is surprising, since the technology to create and project 3D has never been better. But unlike other innovations (sound, color, widescreen, surround sound), 3D requires you to wear something to experience it, and for a lot of people that's an issue. 4KTV does look better, but it's not such a big leap that I wouldn't be able to watch 1080, the way 1080 made SD seem unwatchable in comparison. The average consumer would probably be fine with 720p, nevermind 4K.

A lot of UHDs are 2K upscales, but resolution isn't the only advantage of UHD. The format also offer HDR and a greater color space than Blu-Ray. However, I think we've hit a point of diminishing returns with these improvements, and that the quality increase from Blu-Ray to UHD isn't as great as the quality increase from DVD to Blu-Ray.

Greig Fraser says in this interview that they used Panavision PVintage Primes:

It's not an unreasonable metamorphosis. We can connect the dots and assume that she has it in her to become a star over the five years the film doesn't show us.

LA folks have a few more chances to see The Love Witch. Cinefamily is showing it from 12/30-1/4, projected from a 35mm print. Director Anna Biller will be at the 12/30 screening.

I saw this last night at the Arclight in LA at 120fps and 3D. I don't remember if it was 2K or 4K. It took a little time for me to get used to the HFR, but after that it became immersive. Camera moves were smooth and did not have the annoying motion blur and judder that they would have in 3D at 24fps. On The Hobbit (I only saw the first one) I felt that the HFR made everything look synthetic, but this film didn't have that problem. The 3D was also well done, with roundness and depth, and unlike many movies shown in 3D, it was clear that the the cinematography and editing were geared towards a pleasing and immersive 3D presentation. I don't think HFR is suited to every kind of movie, but I do think it's necessary for 3D.

"Keanu" had some pretty good cinematography. If we're also including TV, "Man Seeking Woman" is well shot. It's not the usual brightly-lit comedy. It traverses a lot of cinematic styles (drama, horror, etc.) for comedic effect. Same for "Key and Peele" (directed by "Keanu" director Peter Atencio, though I don't think DP Jas Shelton worked on the show).

Pretty cool. I'd love to see this in action with anamorphic lenses.

For the 5D 720 footage have you tried the detail-preserving upscale tool in After Effects? I haven't used it, but maybe it'll be helpful in your case. One (not-ideal) option would be to finish at 720, so everything is at the same resolution. This is assuming it's all shot on the 5D, with no GoPro, which will stand out no matter what. For web delivery this might be fine.

When people shoot film in remote locations, far away from any film labs, or possibly in a country without one, what do they do with the exposed film? Is the film taken back home at the end of the shoot to be processed? Is it shipped to the nearest lab? Whenever I see a film shot in a remote jungle or some place I wonder what they did with the film and how they viewed dailies.

On the French film "La Poison," every setup was shot with one take (with rare exceptions), at the request of lead actor Michel Simon, who believed that his first take represented the truth of a scene, and that anything he did after that was a lie. Everything was planned and rehearsed extensively before shooting.

Plenty of big movies and TV shows are indeed shot outside of LA, but those projects don't ORIGINATE there. They still start in LA, and are shot in those outside locations for tax breaks and/or story purposes. For the big shows, these cities are at the mercy of Hollywood deciding to shoot there. Hopefully there's enough of a market for corporate videos, commercials, and other locally originating (and well-paying) video work in these cities that keeps the workers employed when there's no big movie or TV show. The films that do originate in these other markets usually don't pay very well. Chances are the people there work a feature every now and then because that's ultimately what they want to work on, but they really pay the bills with other types of video work. I'm not saying everyone in LA always gets to work on features and TV shows, but at least in LA there's a bigger chance that you can work on a feature or TV show that also pays decently. The shooting itself on movies and TV happen more outside of LA than before, but the movie/TV business itself is still very much LA-centric. Key department heads still typically come from LA (and the same with the actors, except for smaller parts). If you're okay that level of work, or if you simply want to gain experience in a smaller but vibrant market before going to LA, that's fine. But if you want to get beyond a certain point, LA is still the place to be.

Headhunters was fun. I'm surprised it was never remade in English.

Received my copy of this a while back. It's quite the tome! It has a wealth of information. It should be in every library.

I didn't feel like it was as impressive in 70mm as I thought it would be. Perhaps it was the reduced height of the image (rather than extra width). But there was definitely a richness to the colors and contrast, and an overall warmth that I miss from digital projection.

For the Blu-Ray, were the video scenes taken from the original video footage or from the film-out?