Ravi Kiran

What is the advantage of the optical viewfinder?

Anamorphic mode with the RED crops a little off the sides of the image (since the 2x anamorphic lenses were designed for a 1.2:1 35mm area). My only experience with RED anamorphic has been grading a music video shot with both anamorphic lenses and spherical lenses (composed and cropped to 2.40:1), and the spherical footage was sharper. Don't know if it was just a focus issue with the anamorphic lenses or something inherent to shooting RED and anamorphic. I've read that one would shoot RED and anamorphic not for added resolution (the way one would on 35mm) but for the flares and bokeh.

When transferring film to DPX for DI, what kind of latitude is retained in the transition? If footage was overexposed by half a stop, is the image brought back to normal exposure during the scan or in the DI suite? Is the scan to DPX a straight, untouched scan or are adjustments to the image made during the scan? And what are the benefits of linear vs. log?

What codec is it?

When using tracking markers on a green screen, do you have to light to a deeper stop so that you can see the markers? What color should the markers be?

I don't think that graph means that 3D is going away. Since Avatar there have usually been at least 2-3 movies competing for the limited number of 3D screens. That, combined with the fact that the post-Avatar films so far weren't "event 3D" films, would probably explain the graph. So I don't think its fair to say that 3D is already dying. The upcoming Tron film will be a good gauge of the state of 3D at the time.

You'll get the bill from my therapist :) No worries, man! I saw a couple of 3D TVs at Best Buy. I had to get very close to the TVs (not sure what size, but they were smaller than my 52" LCD) for a good 3D effect. Basketball and football footage looked like little cardboard cutouts inside a diorama. Parts of an underwater video were quite impressive. Alice in Wonderland footage was hit-or-miss. The best footage was gameplay from a PS3 racing game. IMO video games are really where home 3D will shine. Gamers are used to using paraphernalia (controllers, Rock Band instruments, etc.), so what's a pair of glasses on top of that?

Karel, I haven't seen Alice in Wonderland, but I wonder if that looked good in 3D because so much of it was shot in front of a green-screen. CG would be a lot easier to render well in 3D, no?

Its too early to start sounding 3D's death knell. After Avatar, the 3D movies have been hasty 2D to 3D conversions for live action films, which of course will eventually sour the audience on 3D. 3D animated films are easier to show in 3D, since they can simply render out left and right eyes. But even those aren't usually composed or edited for 3D. 2D to 3D conversions are the modern equivalent of colorization or "rechanneled for stereo." The audience doesn't know that Avatar was shot in 3D while The Last Airbender was a conversion. They might simply see a crappy 3D conversion and write off all 3D if Hollywood isn't careful. With kids films those 3D surcharges add up quickly for even a small family, so I'm sure a lot of parents would rather not pay for the 3D, or, if they see it in 3D, they might skip out on the snacks. When we start seeing more films shot in 3D I think we can more accurately gauge whether or not audiences are willing to pay extra for it. Pirates of the Caribbean 4 could be a huge boost for the format. Personally I'm not convinced 3D will be as ubiquitous as color or sound. I think it will primarily be used for action, sci-fi, horror, and 3D-animated films.

Some distributors will ask for a 4:3 open-matte/pan-and-scan transfers too. Distributors usually want a textless version of the film if there are credits or other text elements superimposed on the picture. You will probably have to provide a stereo LtRt mix of the soundtrack as well as the 5.1 mix. These requirements vary from distributor to distributor.

I was under the mistaken impression that part of this was shot in IMAX, like TDK, so I saw it in IMAX. When it became clear that I was wrong, I assumed it was shot in 35mm anamorphic and the Phantom, though I did notice shots where the bokeh didn't look like anamorphic. It was only later that I read that part of it was shot on 65mm. I did not notice any jump in clarity for the 65mm shots and VistaVision. I may see it again in IMAX, just to see if I can spot the 65mm footage.

After seeing Clash of the Titans in 3D I refuse to see any 2D film converted to 3D. The effect is mediocre, and the image is dull and washed out. I thought Avatar looked good in 3D, but I saw it in IMAX, so that was the best-case-scenario. On a non-technical note, the vast majority of the movies released so far this year in 3D have been utterly uninteresting to me, except for Toy Story 3. But I saw that in 2D.

How does the Red affect focus fall-off? I would have thought that would be dependent on the lens rather than the camera.

Why do they do it like this? Is it faster/easier to make large numbers of prints through IP/IN versus making prints directly from the DI?

Recently started watching the brilliant BBC sketch show That Mitchell and Webb Look. Rob Kitzmann and John Sorapure are credited as cinematographers, and looking at their IMDB credits, they have very impressive resumes The sketches often feature high quality production value and cinematography. In one sketch spoofing Die Hard they even used filters to simulate anamorphic flares, which your average viewer wouldn't even notice. And the looks vary from ultra-slick to 1970s British TV shows. Anyone else into this show? What kind of cameras do they use?

Avatar's 3D was quite well done, but that's the only film I've seen that was actually shot in 3D. I haven't seen many 3D films not because I'm boycotting them, but because most of them so far are converted from 2D and/or are uninteresting movies. So I'm not against 3D. I just want to see more films that interest me personally being shot in 3D. 3D was the only reason I saw Avatar, though otherwise its not something that'll get me in the theater to see something that I'm otherwise uninterested in. But I don't think 3D is the monumental leap that color and sound were to cinema. Humans are used to seeing flat representations of the world. Black-and-white and silent films were limitations that we weren't used to, though filmmakers often used these limitations to gorgeous effect.

Are there any stereographers, 3D technicians, or others who have shot in 3D in Texas, preferably in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area? I'd like to do some 3D tests, probably using two Red One cameras or two Sony EX-3s. Let me know if you're interested. Also, any help in getting a 3D rig would be much appreciated. I know Keslow Camera in CA and ZGC in NJ have some rigs for rent.

Don't make the mistake I did and see it in 3D. You'll end up paying extra for mediocre 3D effects and a dimmer picture. As for the film itself, meh. I never got sucked into the story, and the action was rarely impressive.

Gorgeous shots! They say daylight is better to use with the RED, but since you're creating a warm look look anyways, I presume tungsten works fine?

http://gordonandthewhale.com/metropolis-na...theatrical-run/ METROPOLIS nabs a theatrical run Will Schiffelbein by: Will Schiffelbein February 14th, 2010 Last week, we heard news that METROPOLIS would be unveiling its once lost original cut. This news came after we learned that a prime print of its original cut, before Paramount’s editors chopped it to bits, had been found in Argentina. Then, it was made available to stream live from the Berlin Film Festival three days ago. If you weren’t one of the 11 or so people who elected to stream it on Friday, don’t fret. It looks like Fritz Lang’s original cut of METROPOLIS will be receiving a theatrical run this year. More information after the jump. Friday night, Fritz Lang’s METROPOLIS screened to rave reviews in front of audiences at the Berlin Film Festival. Reports from critics are claiming that this is “most satisfying version of this classic to date.” Ain’t it Cool News is reporting that this cut of the film will receive a theatrical release, sometime this summer with a DVD/Blu-Ray release just in time for Christmas. The report doesn’t specify an exact date, though I wouldn’t expect a classic silent film to screen in many more cities than New York and Los Angeles. What it does specify, however, is the sheer awesome that this rerelease emanates. Here’s a quote from AICN’s write-up on the event: I wasn’t a huge Metropolis fan but an admirer. I didn’t love it the way I loved Sunrise, City Lights or Nosferatu but close. That might have changed. In this complete form and in this stellar shape (overall), Metropolis is a true wonder to behold, especially for any Science-Fiction or Art Deco fans. And from now on, no one will have to envision scenes from a card: Lang’s director’s cut is here. Like any cinephile, I’d love to catch this in theaters. METROPOLIS is one of those movies that I wish I’d had the chance to see way back in 1927. But alas, Doc Brown refuses to let me bum a ride. Looks like I’ll be waiting for this restored original version to find a place on my DVD shelf, or if I’m lucky, perhaps I’ll be able to see this masterpiece in the cinema. Source: AICN

So I assume that benefit stays even when going down to 35mm? Would going to 35mm via DI be better than reducing it optically? Are there certain kinds of shots they're using 65mm on that would benefit more? If 4K projection is going to become the norm, do you think we'll more of these kinds of films that at least use 65mm for some scenes?

What kind of things are they shooting in 65mm? If its something besides VFX plates, what is the benefit?

With the speed of film stocks in those days plus the deep-focus, they must have been pouring light onto those sets! What stops do you think some of those deep-focus shots were achieved at?

David, thanks for posting those caps. Kurosawa was one of the filmmakers whose images first captivated me as a kid. Heh, I never intended for this thread to become a debate about the "viability" of 2.40:1 and/or anamorphic! It makes about as much sense as Fritz Lang's "funerals and snakes" comment. Why is this even a question? I'd love to see someone like Bordwell analyze Indian films' use of 2.40:1. Pretty much all mainstream Indian films (at least in the major languages) from the late 80s into the 90s and early 2000s, were shot with anamorphic lenses. I don't know what lenses they were using, but they often used zooms. Most of the films are indifferently composed, but every now and then we'll get a beautifully shot film like Lagaan (2001): In the past 5-10 years, I've been seeing more and more Super-35 Indian films. I'm not sure why this is, but it could coincide with the rise in CGI and DIs. Seems like even the average films without any SFX or particularly extreme looks are going through a DI, similar to how it is in the Hollywood.

With the ubiquity of HDTVs and letterboxed DVD/Blu-ray transfers (at least in some countries), are producers and filmmakers less concerned with the 4:3 versions of their films, and hence, they feel more comfortable shooting anamorphic?