Rob Belics

I don't know anything but I just get the feeling this Kinetta thing will not be around in a couple of years. Just a vibe I'm picking up.

Yep. As David said, mostly amateurs. What gets me is film has nothing to apologize for and people seem to think it should "get out of the way old man". It's about time the film group take the offensive or pro-active side and say "step aside young whipper snapper, your still wet behind the ears and have much to learn." BTW, the earlier comment about film chemicals and the environment, the chemicals used for making integrated circuits are much more caustic/toxic/dangerous than anything used for film. Very expensive and large water treatment plants are used at each IC factory just to handle that. Relatively cheap filtering is used at commercial labs for film.

Hm. As far as the story goes, my son hated it. Ebert hated it. The local paper called it "stupid" in two seperate articles.

The only reason many photos go over the wire digitally is due to the speed necessary in todays world. But that doesn't mean 35mm is on its last legs and dying. However, I have heard you won't find digital among the 'true' art photographers in the MF and LF areas. Of course, most were already there preferring MF and up to 35mm anyway.

None of the Landmark theatres here in St. Louis have digital projection but the newer one is very nice in a high rent area. I prefer it to all the others as I've said in other posts. Nice clean projections and their prints always seem to be very good.

On the fence? Other than those who taped it, was there ANY other witness among the millions of New Yorkers on the street and in those buildings that day?

Tee hee? You really said "tee hee"?!!!

When you have thousands of people on the ground and thousands in those buildings but you have to learn about it from a ufo website, then it's a hoax.

I saw it this afternoon. It seemed the outdoor scenes were rather flat but, yes, others were tack sharp with good contrast. However, did anyone else think the lighting was rather 'obvious'? On a happier note, I've complained here, and other places, about the large theatre chain in my area letting their projection systems go to hell. This time someone at least changed the bulb. The print was gorgeous and brightly lit. I could actually study lighting while watching it!

www.photo.net is the first one off the top of my head.

My 14-year old actor son is using an Arricam on student films and hasn't screwed one up yet! :lol:

Heh. My 14-year old actor son started loading mags for student film projects this year. Hasn't screwed one up yet.

I worked, briefly, for Pixar and SGI years ago. Was very well read but, like a lot of things, have forgotten more than I remember about all this.

Time of exposure has no effect when using computer animation. All blur is created by the software. If blur is not created, it is not "induced" by record time or exposure. Exposure time for each frame is not 1/48 or 1/30. Frames are recorded the same as a DI would using machines similar, or maybe exactly, to the ArriLaser.

That's another entry to another thread. :P

I thought Seattle went out of business some time ago. RGBs website is still up.

Unfortunately they don't list an email on their website: RGB Color Lab

I may have missed a point here but if the range of available signal is, say, from 0 to 1 and you use an 8-bit converter, "stepping" between values is more noticeable than if you had a 12-bit converter. 16 and 32 will show less of this stepping. In HDR, you are translating and moving dynamic range values into a smaller area. If you took an outdoor scene that has a range of zero to five but wanted to display it on a computer screen that has a range of zero to one, it's easier to fit the high bits into that zero to one range if you had more bits to work with, hence the value of using 16 and 32 bits. It creates a smoother, less noticeable fit.

November 1 is the target date for rental of the Dalsa. Did not notice any "for sale" listing. Panavision does not sell cameras, only rents.

You're pants may be LOOSE so you may be LOSING your pants which would be a bad thing to LOSE but there is no such word as LOOSING.

I used to be an expert in electronics but have forgotten a lot. What I've forgotten is the terminology for what is being discussed here. "Dynamic range" is the "range of change" but "resolution" is the definition for the number of steps in an a/d converter. Noise plays a factor, somewhere in all this, because noise can occupy some of the lower and higher level bits so your effective range is lower. 8-bits, by the way, is 256 levels, not 16 which is 16384.

Yes, I used to use them but it's been a year or so. Nice folks. Takes about a week to get slides back. About $9US per roll. David Mullen has used them too.

Well, if you scan 35mm film to digital then it's dumbed down. Sometimes the only way to color correct or manipulate an image is through a DI. Sometimes an optical correction makes it worse but, in any case, a scan is dumbing down.

"....directed by Eddie Fruchter, with Academy Award winner John Pytlak."

I must be out of the loop. All the professional productions I've been on chose film.