Ravi Kiran

The Dark Knight Rises was finished optically, as Christopher Nolan prefers, though obviously anything with CG in it was digitized at some point. No DI. The Master went through a variety of processes, depending on the deliverable: http://www.studiodaily.com/2012/09/films-not-dead-yet-part-2-fotokems-workflow-for-the-master-in-70mm-35mm-and-4k/ "First, there are the 70mm prints, which were all made in a photochemical finishing process. Second are the limited number of 35mm prints also struck from cut negative. (FotoKem doesn't know where those ended up.) Third are the general-release 35mm prints made from a hybrid 8K/6K DI process, and the fourth option is the 4K DCP, from the same DI, which will be projected at different resolutions depending on the capabilities of individual theaters."

To play devil's advocate, if the plan is to convert it to 3D anyways, why not just shoot it in 3D? And does anamorphic complicate the 3D conversion process?

My advice? Skip the concession stand. You aren't required to get popcorn and drinks at the movies.

Also, what I've read indicates that 3D is doing well outside of the US in countries like China and Russia.

Its hard to say 3D is on the wane this soon into the post-Avatar 3D filmmaking era. Just like Avatar was an important benchmark in 3D filmmaking, I think The Hobbit, with its faster framerate, will be another. Personally, I don't see more than one or two 3D films a year, but I'm not going to write off the public demand for it just yet.

Paul Koestner has posted in RedUser and has answered questions about the show. Best comedy on TV. Does anyone know if the Blu-Rays are 720 like the broadcast or did they do a 1080 version for the Blu-Ray?

Fantastic Mr. Fox was shot digitally. Was Bottle Rocket 35mm? Besides those two his films were 35mm anamorphic.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/peter-jacksons-48fps-presentation-of-the-hobbit-at-cinemacon-gets-a-mixed-response-20120424 Peter Jackson's 48fps Presentation Of 'The Hobbit' At CinemaCon Gets A Mixed Response NEWS BY KEVIN JAGERNAUTH | APRIL 24, 2012 4:58 PM While the fact that Peter Jackson was shooting the upcoming "The Hobbit" films in 3D at 48 frames-per-second rate instead of the standard 24 frames-per-second has been around since proudction started, it gained a bit more steam last week. There were concerns about how prepared (or not) theaters would be for the blockbuster film come December, to show it in the format that Jackson intends it be viewed. The short version is that exhibitors/theater owners will need to upgrade the software on their 3D projectors to handle 48fps, and it's not cheap (about $10,000). However, the selling point is that 48 fps offers a crisp viewing experience, free of any motion artifiacts, juttering or any other anomalies sometimes present in 24 fps screenings. Win/win right? Unfortunately for Jackson, it's not quite a slam dunk. Presenting 10 minutes of footage today in the fancy new format at CinemaCon, the screening left many unimpressed. On the more negative end of the spectrum was Devin Faraci who took to Twitter to say "Oh no. Not a fan of 48fps. Oh no no no," adding that "THE HOBBIT, frankly, did not look cinematic." Over on his Badass Digest blog he elaborated his thoughts, and essentially, the crisper looking image had the odd effect of making everything seem almost too realistic. "The 48fps footage I saw looked terrible. It looked completely non-cinematic. The sets looked like sets," he explained. But response from the rest of the crowd, even if negative, was toned with a bit of caution as well. Josh Dickey at Variety had a myriad of thoughts tweeting, "Great Scott, THE HOBBIT in 48 frames-per-second is a thing to behold. Totally different experience. Not all will like the change. 48 fps has an immediacy that is almost jarring. And lighting it just right will be a learning process, as 3D was and still is. 48 fps also, unfortunately, looks a bit like television. But it does bring 3D to a different level." Peter Sciretta at /Film also had mixed feelings saying, "Saw ten minutes of Hobbit in 48fps 3D. Very exciting, but I'm now very unsure about higher framerates. 48fps feature films will likely divide moviegoers -- I expect to see stronger hate, more so than 3D." Meanwhile, the usually very picky Jeff Wells was impressed, but also echoed some of Devin Faraci's concerns. "I felt astonished & amazed...the term is WOWED...and yet a bit uncertain about the 48 fps 3D footage from Peter Jackson's 'The Hobbit.' In a word, 48 fps 3D looks like high-def video. It doesn't look 'cinematic', lacking that filtered or gauzy look we're all accustomed to," he tweeted. But it was Alex Billington at First Showing who proabably hit the nail on the head of what unfolded this afternoon: "There are going to be endless debates about 48FPS and how good/bad it looks. I just think we need to get used to change after 80yr of 24FPS." It's too early to determine the success or failure of this new "format" (for lack of a better term), but calling it a "mistake" (as some people are) based on 10 minutes of footage is premature at best. In fact, much of the reaction today is reminiscent of the same concerns that James Cameron's "Avatar" was met with in the months leading up to its release, that 3D wouldn't be the game changer that Fox was hoping for, and audiences wouldn't be impressed enough to make it a hit. And then it went on to make over 2 billion dollars. But at the current moment, while everyone at CinemaCon is talking about 48fps, to the average regular moviegoer out in the real world? They have no idea what that means. Just search "48fps" on Twitter and you'll see numerous people who don't know what it is or that "The Hobbit" was even shooting in that format. The problems that 48 fps purports to solve are arguably not even noticed by the average viewer. Terms like "artificating" and "juttering" are terms still best known among hardcore tech heads, not moviegoers, and frankly, that's because when most people watch movies, they aren't seeing those "problems." The only criteria for the average person buying a movie ticket is that the film is good, and that the presentation doesn't take them out of the movie. Will 48 fps be too real? Too digital? Too crisp? And more worryingly, uncinematic? Time will tell. All told, the sky isn't falling. Yes, footage of "The Hobbit" was shown and people were concerned. But it was a brief bunch of footage that, it could be said, wasn't long enough to allow the viewer to truly settle in and get used to it. Our guess? More footage of the "The Hobbit" will be shown at Comic-Con and many of the people at CinemaCon today, now prepared for how it looks and feels, will start to turn their opinion around. As for the rest of us, we'll see if 48 fps makes a difference or not when "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" opens on December 14th.

http://www.in70mm.com/news/2012/samsara/review/index.htm It would have been wonderful to have seen a pristine 70mm print of this masterpiece. However, "Samsara" merits the widest possible distribution. "Samsara" is a triumph of the moving image, I strongly urge you to see it. On a more technical note and in case they cannot be caught, the credit sequence at the end will reveal that: All "Samsara" images were photographed entirely on 65mm film, digitally oversampled at 8k Ultra High Resolution, and mastered for 4k Digital Cinema release. The rolling stock was 65mm Kodak Vision. The soundtrack is in Dolby 7.1 Surround in selected theatres. 65mm services were by the excellent Fotokem laboratories, a name familiar to regular readers of in70mm.com.

On one of the bonus features, John C. Reilly mentions that even the vomiting scene was done with VFX. Apparently Kate Winslet was wearing a blue suit, and attached to her was some sort of vomit rig.

On one of the bonus features, which I watched today, John C. Reilly mentions that even the vomiting scene was done with VFX. Apparently Kate Winslet was wearing a blue suit, and attached to her was some sort of vomit rig.

Are any studios backing up their TV shows in this manner?

Carnage, directed by Roman Polanski and photographed by Pawel Edelman, takes place entirely in an apartment, mostly in the living room. It unfolds in real-time, over the film's roughly 74 minute runtime (not including the end credits). The weather outside the apartment is fairly overcast. The film starts during the day and ends in early evening. How did they control the lighting during shooting? All I could find out was that it was shot on a set. Were the views from outside the windows simulated with a fake city backdrop? Were they digitally composited in? The end credits featured several visual effects people. This is a beautiful looking film. The blocking is masterful, and the lighting and set design are done such that the film is never visually flat or boring. Blu-Ray screenshots - the last shot is a wide shot of the living room

It is called The Smell of Success. I searched for "Manure" and couldn't find it until I remembered the title was changed.

There are more options in between 16mm and a 5D. The Sony F3 is a good option. If you're looking for deeper depth of field, the EX3 is also good.

I haven't watched that interview yet, but I'm surprised Lucas of all people would have trouble distributing a film. He could do it himself if he wanted to. Unfortunately for films like this, movies dealing with American race issues don't have much of an international reach, and these days international box office is as important (if not more) than US box office to studios.

Freya, this movie was 2/3 Red MX and 1/3 Red Epic. 4K DI Workflow on The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Besides being a fun film, I thought the IMAX sequences were really well done, particularly the Dubai skyscraper scene. Is it just me or did some of the IMAX shots have sharpening applied to them? I was surprised to see edge halos on them. What is the general cost comparison between shooting 65mm and 35mm anamorphic? It is probably a pipe dream to expect an entire feature to be shot in IMAX, but if the non-IMAX scenes were shot on 65mm, there would be less of a a quality difference between IMAX and non-IMAX scenes.

I quite enjoyed this film. I think it is more for film buffs, though it seems like it would be a kids' movie. The 3D was well done, though probably not integral to the viewing experience. A few times I took the glasses on and off and noticed that the glasses added a slight green tinge to the image (besides the usual dulling effect), which was unfortunate. I remember watching Melies' films in college and being blown away by how inventive they were, especially for that time. I can only imagine what audiences at the turn of the century thought when they saw these films.

Agreed. They defintely need to remaster Nolan's Batman films. I watched The Dark Knight this weekend on Blu-Ray and found it somewhat waxy and DNR'd, with edge halos as well.

I'm putting together my colorist (and editing) reel, and I was wondering if I needed before and after videos for all the clips. I have ungraded versions of a few of the projects, but not all of them. Is a before and after few necessary for everything?

I'm working on a few reality show pilots, and I was wondering what your recommendations would be for in-car dashboard mounted cameras. Preferably the camera has an LCD screen so we can see the framing, and also removable SD card memory so we can dump media and swap cards out.

I'm doing a gig in Charleston, SC July 1-4 (flying in July 1st) and I'm looking at rental houses around the area. I'd like to get two EX1 or EX3 cameras with two to three batteries and cards, and possibly two tripods. What are some good rental houses in the area?

http://cigsandredvines.blogspot.com/2011/06/mihai-malaimare-jr-is-shooting-master.html Mihai Malaimare Jr. Is Shooting 'The Master'; 65mm Will Be Used We've heard the rumors for a while now, starting with a comment on our Elswit story, but we've now received a tip from a source close to production that confirms Mihai Malaimare Jr. is the cinematographer on 'The Master.' The DP previously worked with Francis Ford Coppola on "Youth Without Youth" and "Tetro," both of which were shot digitally but don't worry, 'The Master' shooting on film. And if our source is correct, there will be 65mm. If you're not familiar with him, we've included a short behind-the-scenes video from "Tetro" and a Sony spot both featuring Malaimare at work. This will be Paul's first feature without longtime DP Robert Elswit, who was already scheduled to work on the new 'Mission: Impossible' and 'Bourne' films to do 'The Master.'

Anyone know if this will be screened in 4K anywhere?