Brian Rose

Considering all the "Imax" theaters around me went digital a few years back, I'm now four hours away from a proper 15/70 theater. So I'd be thrilled to read some comments from anyone who's gotten to see a 15/70 print of this film.

And for a brief time each studio named their own process something. Remember Warnercolor?

Every time I hear a director or DP say, "Man this lens is great. It really gives you that depth of field look" I wanna scream

No doubt the confusion was due to the fact that during this transitional period, when studios were beginning to adopt the new eastman monopak, but Technicolor had not yet abandoned its proprietary 3-strip process, you often had productions which were shot on Eastman, but then had Technicolor manufacture the exhibition prints, by creating separation masters from the single strip neg, and production dye transfers prints as they would if it was a three strip process. And in the credits sequence, Technicolor was somewhat misleadingly given the usual credit, "Color by Technicolor," even though it wasn't the same as if they had actually shot it in their process. It was not long before this practice was changed (for obvious reasons, as I'm sure Eastman Kodak had a thing or two to say about that policy) and you started to see the more accurate credit "Prints by Technicolor."

So according to Time Magazine's just released review of the film, the movie ends with this title card: "This motion picture was shot and finished on film" F*cking A

Oh my yes what a marvelous film, and such marvelous camera work! Amazes me what those grand old DPs were able to do with such slow films, and such bulky Mitchell blimped cameras. It's really a shame, that thanks to auteur theory Hitch gets all the praise, when really I don't think there can be enough superlatives heaped upon Hitch's go to DP Robert Burks who lensed nearly all of Hitch's films during his decas dies mirabilis. And GOD that first shot of Grace Kelly. Absolutely makes me melt every single time.

Though few details have come out yet, all indications from my sources are yes there will be some kind of limited theatrical run to venues with 4K. Of course, we're dealing with a 4 hour movie including intermission, so the screenings will likely be one night only. If you have a 4K theater near you, I'd suggest lobbying them to show the film. I also have heard from reliable sources that, between now and the July 19 Academy screening, you can probably expect some kind of announcement from Sony/Columbia regarding the theatrical re-release, as well as blu-ray release date and specs.

I have it on good authority from the MAN himself, Robert Harris, who restored the film, and knows more about large format than just about anyone on the planet, that the 4K is marvelous. Utterly marvelous. Consider this: if you're seeing a 70mm print, you are seeing something that is several generations away from the original, derived from an internegative, from an interpositive, from the restoration negative and myriad separation masters. In some instances 7 or 8 generations away from the original! With the new 4K transfer, you'll be seeing the restoration straight from the camera neg. Harris has stated there are two ways to see this film: in 70mm or in 4K. What I'd be more concerned about is that the screen is the proper size. 70mmm or 4K makes no difference if the screen is too small to really show off the clarity of the form. But considering that this is the ACADEMY we're talking about, I wouldn't worry about that either. Trust me. It'll be magnificent. Everyone I've heard from who's seen the 4K says it's marvelous, the new standard for the form. You should go, and consider yourself very fortunate; most of us will have to wait for the blu-ray, and even that is really a second rate experience to what you'll have.

Congrats, all! Seriously. I got nominated, but wasn't even close, and I've never forgiven myself for not being a better DP. You all have real futures in this.

From McCabe & Mrs. Miller, and for me, the greatest single, static shot in cinema. From How Green Was My Valley, it comes at the end of a magnficent slow dolly shot, and I think it's the best thing John Ford ever shot.

Hi All, My newest animated short is now completed. This one is my first test of a camera motion rig I've been building, which allows fluid camera movement across all axis, and makes possible any shot or camera move imaginable within a miniature environment. For my first test, I created an entry for the Union Pacific 150th anniversary video competition, whose challenge was to remake a 1970s commercial jingle. I reimagined it to tell a short story in a single, 60 seconds unbroken moving camera shot. If you like it, I'd sure appreciate your help by logging in to UP's website via facebook, and clicking the "Like" button. Most likes wins some prize money this month, in addition to the final contest competition. Your help would be greatly appreciated! A short by Brian Rose

Hey All, I'm going to be shooting some film in Oregon late next week, and I was pondering the potential headaches of having to cart the film around and have it inspected at each stop along the way...oy. Then I thought perhaps I could have it shipped to where I'm staying, but I'm renting a condo type spot from an individual, and I'm wary of causing complications...what with strange packages showing up and all... So it occurred to me, can I just arrange to have the film I order from Kodak shipped to the area post office, and designate that they hold it at location for pick up when I arrive in town? Or is that what post office boxes are for? Any ideas what I can do. Sorry if was an obvious or simple question, but I've never dealt with this situation before, so any advice for those who have dealt with this would be very appreciated! Best, BR

Gaffer's tape. No doubt.

Really? I just ordered some Sunday, and it's being shipped due in end of this week. Did you contact Orwo North American? They have a website set up where you can buy. I've not shot double x at night, and honestly I wouldn't try it, at least, not without lighting. That poop is ugly even in daylight, and available light at night? Yuck. Pushing would just exaggerate the grain as well. Try youtube and searching for double x for film tests people post. Tons out there, and you can see what you're getting into. I mean, for the cost you pay to push the stock, you might be better off buying 500T color, processing as normal, and doing black and white in post, that is, if you want a bit tighter grain.

TW, go to vimeo, and search for "orwo" and sort by newest. A fellow named Rob Houlihan has 1080p clips you can view and download, featuring the Orwo 100 ASA stock, shot and processed normal, and the 400 ASA rated for 800 and pushed one stop. They're very informative. It sold me on Orwo over Kodak.

Are you stuck with the Kodak? I mean, if you haven't already bought it, you might look at the Orwo stock. They've got 400 ASA, and I've seen it pushed to 800, and it looks BETTER than Double X processed normally. Honestly I quit using Double X because it just looks like crap to me.

I make documentaries, and I couldn't name a single website. Instead I try to find any and every doc that has a director commentary. Their insights, the fact that they all have commonalities in budget and technical woes, is a constant source of inspiration. Anything Criterion fits the bill: Hoop Dreams, Crumb, Harland County, USA, Burden of Dreams, The Times of Milk, F For Fake...

This gastropod has to be a troll. Can we get a mod on this? I'm pretty confident the name's a fake or alias.

Well as you aptly pointed out, it does make more fiscal sense to save on the front end, and use the rough cut to fundraise for the finish. And it gives me time to figure out whether I want to keep my full frame 4x3 original, or crop and zoom to 16x9. I really hope for this film to have a distribution model lined up, so hopefully I can bypass the **(obscenity removed)** festival circuit, or at least, get in past the twits that masquerade as judges! ;)

Adrian, that's makes a ton of good sense. The footage I don't forsee being useful as stock footage, not now at least. One day all my material will be donated to the public domain, but until then, I don't see licensing it out. 16mm black and white probably won't drive much interest anyways. And I wont' be shooting TONS of film. Budget won't allow, sad to say. The interviews will be high def, but the b-roll and reenactments will be film, where applicable. So it's a documentary, but it'll be planned and storyboarded to the same extent as a narrative feature. I even want to shoot the still photos on film, and do all my moves in camera like Ken Burns used to do. It makes the photos breath with grain, and there is a subtle bob and weave even when the shot is static. This film will be all about getting away from the digital suite, and back to doing stuff in camera. BR

I'm slowly moving forward on a new doc project...one of those multi-year endeavors that gets shot as time and money allows. It's a biopic, covering roughly five or six decades, and I want to shoot different stocks/formats as time period dictates...16mm black and white for the 50s and 60s, super 8 for the 70s, beta for 80s, and so on. I'm considering my post workflow with regards to the 16mm. Work will be digital naturally. I'm torn between the cost benefit of getting it all transferred in HD 1080 telecine from the get go, which will be what I carry all the way to the final piece, or getting an SD transfer with a keycode for editing, then when I've got a picture lock, getting only the chosen bits transferred in either HD 1080p, or 2K scan. Trick is I haven't worked out how much 16mm I'll be shooting...it is kind of up to where the story goes...it'll be a healthy amount, since the bulk of the story's action is in the 60s. And as I shoot more film, it would seem that then the costs benefit of editing SD, then getting only the chosen bits in HD makes more sense. But if it is less, then would it make sense to get it all in HD 1080p? And what about 2K? Is it really worth the added cost over 1080p, given I won't be finishing to film or making a DI? What do you all think? Best, BR

Hey Aubrey, since you're such a genius and all in figuring out how to make digital look like super 8 film, tell me this: What are you gonna do if the professor asks to see your film reels?

Well said.

Yes exactly. She needs to be honest with her professor. Because there is no way in HELL she'll fool them into thinking her digital is film. To do so would be more expensive than to shoot on film in the first place! But sadly I doubt she has the conscience or character, given the best response she could muster to my reply was the sort of reply I'd expect from an eight grader, not a college student.

But she said in her original posting that she thought super 8 was cheap but then realized it wasn't. She should've done the research. And beside that, there are SO many options. Budget shouldn't be a barrier, but an opportunity. And there have been many great suggestions on how to fulfill the assignment and shoot on film. She hasn't asked for help on that. I had poor students in my class who couldn't afford things and I helped them by loaning my own gear. But they came to ME for help. But she is unwilling to consider our advice, or seek help to resolve her problem. Instead she has leaped straight to, "How can I cheat and shoot on digital and fool the professor into thinking it's film." Worse, she has asked us to help, because she can't even cheat on her own. It is not because she can't afford film that I am upset. It is because her first impulse to solve her problem is to cheat on a class assignment, and for that alone she deserves to flunk.