Reuel Gomez

I have the "Les Miserables" Blu-Ray and let me tell you it looks terrible.

I read an article from a while back (I'd say about 2002-2003) where some guy from EFilm said that they scan at a higher resolution, I think it was 4K, before doing a film-out in 2K. Is this true? And would that mean that a 4K D.I. scans in 8K resolution?

In that case, you'd only transfer to digital once you'd color timed and cut the film?

Wether it be standard def or high def, what would be good video taps/monitors to use when shooting 35mm?

Also, if you do a D.I., what gets scanned? It sounds to me that you're saying the film that came out of the camera and was processed.

So you can't get 2.35 without using anamorphic lenses unless you're willing to go through that extra optical step?

What do you mean by "standard sound format" ? Shooting spherically (as in, not "full apeture")

Would you shoot S35 knowing you're doing a photochemical finish and composing for 2.35 or would you just use anamorphic lenses to prevent any loss of quality?

The Dark Knight films were never meant to be true to the comic book.

This somewhat relates to the last topic I posted. Nowadays, most movies shot on film have gone through a D.I., but some, such as Chris Nolan, still prefer the traditional photochemical workflow. So in an age where digital tools are the standard, what benefits are there to an "old-school" approach?

When the 35mm footage is blown up, isn't there a loss in quality?

Is a FF sensor the same size as a VistaVision frame?

What if they felt the look of a certain lens was a better choice than what the DP had in mind?

Also, would it be considered micro-managing if I myself had a lens or camera preference?

Were you doing a narrative film?

Also, do they both cover FF sensors?

What's a dupe negative?

So anything that contained CGI was scanned/recorded back onto 35/65mm but everything else was contact printed, did I get that right?

What happened was I was watching a featurette on the T2 DVD and I was confused when I heard them talking about the VFX shots and optical compositing and took it as if Jim Cameron were saying that they were optically compositing.

So they used film scanners/recorders on the TDK films?

I'm referring to CGI, not anything that can be shot practically. Sorry I didn't specify

From what I understand, digital compositing never really became commonplace until the digital intermediate process became popular in the early 2000's. So how were visual effects (not special effects) placed into a shot if you aren't doing a D.I.?

Wow, that came out of nowhere.

I was watching a YouTube video about the Leica Summilux-C primes where the guy from BandPro said that they were designed by the same guy that designed the Panavision Primo lenses. Other than speed, which do you think performs better?

If there was a set of prime lenses you'd pair them with, what would they be?