Freya Black

Sadly that might be a bit of a jump but some stuff is destined for TV and the movies and some stuff is made with internet and phones in mind, so I get the impression it is going in two directions with stuff like Netflix and broadcast TV trying to be more cinema like and a lot stuff made with more internetty ideas in mind (I'm not sure there is a word for what I mean) being made with an eye to smaller devices. Freya

Yeah I wouldn't even crop the Duper8 (ouch I forgot we are calling that MAX8 this week!) stuff to 16:9 but keep in at 14:9 and use all the negative. I really don't believe aspect ratio is going to matter in the future which will be a bit of a blessing and a curse. Some things are already being delivered in multiple aspect ratios and that is likely to be a future thing too. A lot of things are going to end up more like the internet is... In some ways that will give more freedom but I know some people aren't going to like it too because it will mean things will get more loose which has a downside to it as well. Freya

Another thing to think about. The people who are doing this on music videos and stuff are not doing this because they have an old standard 16mm camera because they are in fact usually shooting on Red or Alexa Studio, or something like that, where the standard is to shoot 16:9 but they are looking to do something different, so they are doing this stuff very deliberately. I think it's sometimes because they think it will work really well on phones and computers and stuff but sometimes it really does seem like they are just doing it to try to be different. Freya

I have the same kind of conflict myself sometimes. I have an old ACL that is only 4:3 and I could get it converted to Super16 but it would cost money and I could probably make some kind of film or a lot of a film for that kind of money. In which case it would probably be better to just shoot it in 4:3. I like the fact that Super16 uses the extra bit of negative... It's very cool in that sense... and of course like you say if you are shooting 4:3 on single perf film you feel like you aren't using all the negative. The other issue I have is that I like framing stuff in Super16 or even wider and I feel less excited and sure about framing in 4:3 but I'm sure I could get over that and to be honest it might be nice to have different pieces of work in different aspect ratios because I like trying out different things and having more creative options. If it were me I would see if Tyler can find you the Super16 bits but if he can't I wouldn't worry about it. In fact even if he can track down the magic parts (which I actually believe he might be able to) then maybe you should shoot this project in 4:3 anyway and get it sorted and then when the parts arrive you could get it converted and shoot your next project in 16:9. The only problem you might run into with that is that if you are trying to build up a reel it might not work so well on a little youtube or vimeo window to switch up the aspect ratios so dramatically. Personally I would still go with it however on the basis that I believe it is good to get {#stuff#} done rather than hang about till something bad happens. You can always reframe the footage for your reel if you need to. Definitely not ideal but I don't think these are the days where worrying about what is ideal are a good thing. You could even crop the 4:3 stuff to 14:9 BBC style to make it fit on your reel without making the aspect ratio change or the crop be too dramatic. So lots to think about but mostly I wouldn't worry about the aspect ratio because I think the way things are going, it will either be considered super cool to switch up your aspect ratios or the future will be aspect ratio agnostic. Freya

I kind of disagree with this. I notice a lot of music videos now are deliberately switching up the aspect ratios. There are a lot of new music videos being made in 4:3 and even some where they seem to have shot in Red Anamorphic mode without the Anamorphic lenses. It's actually considered kind of cool to have different aspect ratios these days. I guess because a lot of movies have been switching it up on that score lately. Theres been quite a few movies where the aspect ratio changed during the course of the movie. I don't think a lot of younger people have the association that 4:3 is old. I was in the garden with a little FM radio recently and talking to a girl and she was facinated by it and was like what is that? I had to explain a few times what it was to her because she had never seen something like it, so even though she knew you could get radio programs over the air she had not really seen someone with a little handheld radio before. A lot of younger people now won't even know that 4:3 is any kind of a thing beyond being a bit different. They will probably see it as strange like you say but not neccesarily old fashioned. It will depend on their experiences. (and strange might not be a bad thing!) Also here in Europe there is a lot of TV that is still 4:3. Also I don't think people notice that much whether something is 4:3 or not on youtube. There is a lot of stuff on YouTube that is 4:3 and nobody thinks anything of it especially if they are not watching full screen. If they are watching on a phone or ipad or something it might even fit the screen better. Although they won't think "Oh it's great it fills the screen". They probably won' t think about it at all. The association with 4:3 being old is for people who are either thinking of old Academy format movies or probably more likely people in the states who are thinking about when TV used to be both SD and 4:3 but here in Europe it didn't really work out quite that way so it's different. However there is a younger generation now for who TV is not such a central thing in their lives and I'm afraid to say the same is probably true of cinema too and the internet is a mish mash of aspect ratios 4:3 and 16:9. I mean sometimes people on youtube even encode the aspect ratios wrong, or people film with their iphone in portrtait orientation and it's all just largely normal there. Can you see what I mean Tyler? Freya

I think it looks really cool and it is problably fine when mounted on the right kind of tripod which would perhaps be harder to find now but all the same... Really nice find. Thanks for sharing. :) Freya

Wait... Time Warner have !!15/70!! projectors in a warehouse! I didn't catch that bit. That is mad! I thought all that stuff was the property of IMAX and they controlled it. Okay theres a bunch of stuff going on clearly. Freya

There is a slight problem with all this. If Kodak bought the projectors off Weinstein (TWC) then why are the projectors in the Time Warner storage facility? Time Warner could be looking after them for Kodak as part of a deal I suppose. Also if the projectors were just abandoned in the cinemas then would they not still be there? That would account for how Dunkirk is able to open on so many more screens at the moment. However that would suggest there are two sets of projectors. The ones abandoned in the cinema and the ones that Time Warner have. If Kodak also have a ton of 5/70 projectors too then that is three sets of projectors. I don't know what to make of it all. I'm actually more inclined to believe that there really could be 3 sets of projectors. I'm less inclined to believe that Time Warner bought the projectors off TWC. I think that is just something deadline said and kind of went viral because I've not seen anything substantial to back this story up. It's all really interesting but I suspect something somewhere is made up. Freya

I'm sort of sympathetic to that point of view. It's like you were saying Tyler... it's clear that IMAX themselves don't care about 15/70 and 5/70 is much more practical in a whole heap of ways. In some ways IMAX is kind of a hinderance to establishing 5/70 as the special format although they are all kinda 70mm film. I think the sensible thing to do would be to concentrate on spherical 5/70 for now. I think Quentin went to far in trying to get Anamorphic working at this point although I also kind of like the way he gave it a go but throwing anamorphic in there too vastly increases the issues you have to deal with. I think Quentin should make another film in just spherical 5/70 if he can. If they can get spherical 5/70 off the ground properly then they can mess around with anamorphic lenses later. Freya

I don't know whether it's even confusion or just a rumour that got copied and went wild but I feel a certain amount of skepticism about it but can't get any details. Do you have a link to anything about Kodak buying the projectors? I think it would kind of make sense for them seeing as they are in the business of supplying the prints and everything! Are you sure Time Warner bought any projectors? Maybe it is the Kodak projectors in the warehouse? Where do you think Time Warner bought projectors from and why wouldn't they be out there projecting Dunkirk at the moment? I also heard it suggested that the 70mm hateful eight projectors were just left in the cinemas after the screenings and some of them were subsequently destroyed but that's another rumour with no backing. Freya

You mean the picture on that webpage? Yeah I was thinking this doesn't look like the same camera at all but I assume someone just used some stock photo who probably hasn't even seen the camera in question. I think this is where the camera ended up though so it still exists but isn't getting a lot of use... which is a shame because it seems Christopher Nolan could really use this camera at the moment! ;) Nice to see you posting here John! :) Freya

It won't be about theatres with prints vs theatres that are digital but it is about 70mm and Imax providing a special experience that people will pay more money for... like the 3D thing. I have even heard annecdotal stories about people not actually knowing what 70mm actually was but they just knew it was special in some way and wanted to go have a different and special experience at the cinema so they went. I have had a very negative outlook on the future of cinema for a long time. We now have greater resolution for digital projection on the blu-rays than we have in cinema. It seemed like a really stupid move to me to remove what was special about cinemas especially at such an early stage in the technology. Not only was it a bad idea to start with but they rushed the transition to digital. Some cinemas now even use sub 2K projection. It seems like it would have also been sensible to at least make the DCP servers more upgradable than they are. The whole thing is a bit of a mess. There isn't the same kind of compelling reason to go to a cinema anymore and I think that Quentin and Christopher Nolan realised that. I know that a lot of people aren't that keen on Quentin but actually getting all those 70mm projectors out there was an amazing feat. Something Quentin could pull off more easily that Mr Nolan too because he has a reputation as a rebel and Christopher Nolan has a different kind of reputation to upkeep... but once all those projectors were sitting there it was probably relativley easy for Christopher Nolan to say... we can have a big IMAX release and we can use these other projectors too to bring in more money. An easy sell all of a sudden. I know it's been said that Time Warner bought the projectors off the Wiensteins lots of times but I question whether this is true or a rumour that got out of hand. If anyone finds anything concrete about that I would love to know. Freya

Well they just need a bit machining off the bottom. They are the easiest lens to convert from M42 to PL and maintain infinity focus. It's worth noting that there are different models of Helios 44 even in M42 mount and only the one model is of use in this way. I know some people who use the other kind of M42 adaptors though and forgo infinity focus altogether and make it work.

I think the camera might still exist and it ended up here although I don't think that is a picture of it in the link: http://www.oscars.org/science-technology/technology-history Freya

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/b4/92/72/b4927225bad75593ab38806ce028737d.jpg

If the trend for watching on phones or other tiny screen devices continues then I suppose it could be possible to reframe the movie for a phone version where it is mostly close ups! hah hah! I think the trend at the moment is to shoot more close ups as the big screen experience seems to be becoming less significant sadly. Freya

[more seriously... if you aren't liking the Cooke look it's kind of fair enough. Everyone does and should have differenet tastes in lenses and stuff... it's a good thing... don't feel peer pressure just because of what some other people are into!]

Whaaaa! You don't like the Cooke look Miguel???!!! Yikes I'm going to have to rethink our friendship! ;) Freya

Hiya Adam! Good to see you here again! You might be interested in the new Cooke Series 7/i lenses that have just arrived too. Cooke goodness in full frame format... https://www.redsharknews.com/production/item/4526-cooke-releases-series-7-full-frame-plus-primes The lenses will cover dragon 6K too and possibly the new helium 8K sensor. I'm not sure there isn't slight vingnetting with the latter however. Editorial changed my article to say it covers the 8K sensor but I would check to be sure before jumping in the deep end. Freya

If it's a crystal sync motor then you might be able to swap out the crystal and wire in new ones, maybe with a switch but I suspect this will be non trivial. Freya

I guess the big advantage for the cinematographer might be more stuff for their reel if they make something really nice. Freya

Is it brown? Freya

Like gold dust I tell you! ;) Freya

Okay those are interesting. I like the fact they run off 12volt. This may draw me in depending on how things turn out! Freya

Don't have a lot of time to write things just now but during my time as a Vagabond in Central Europe I sometimes play with lights to try things out and experiment with thngs. These tend to be the lights that are already in the hostels when I get there and it does depend on people being out but the point is that you don't need fancy lights to start trying thngs out. You could experiement with lamps and houshold bulbs and you could also pick up an old second hand lighting kit scary cheap. I used to have (possibly still have) a set of red heads I paid a scary tiny amount for. Pick up cheap second hand lights, preferably stuff with barn doors etc and start experimenting and see what you can learn. There will always be newer lighting technology but if you get the hang of working with various kinds of lights it will hold you in good stead. If it's more about having something to work with on low budget stuff outside of LA then you are probably better off getting some cheap LED lights that have a good reputation. Freya