cole t parzenn

If I may piggyback, why are incident meters preferred over reflectant meters (if they are)?

Why aren't sensors 21 by 17.5 millimeters?

Better stock up, then! :/

If you're locking off the camera, why use vfx? Shoot it twice, once for each reflection, and cut on the tire passing through the puddle. Right?

Was Trumbull the only one using 65 and Dykstra the only one using reverse bluescreen? Also, were the "2001" models shot against blackscreen, with hand-drawn mattes? That'd be the best way to do it, I suppose.

Put a projector and projection screen on either side of a puddle and filming the resultant reflection, I believe.

They could have at least used 5/70 projection... couldn't they have?

If it makes you feel any better, I'm seeing it in HD, albeit compressed HD, on Netflix. Again, for whatever my opinion's worth, UHD is silly; the problem with Rec. 709 is the colors, not the pixel count; it makes more sense to just use 2K. But I think that Super Technirama 70 should be the standard format for 2.39 material, so...

"United States of Tara?" I'm in the middle of binge watching that. It was a good looking show, for whatever my opinion's worth.

I figured that the Super 35-grain comment was in reference to 2.40, too, though the context makes it a bit ambiguous. (I should have left it out, probably.) My understanding is that 4k DIs are quite expensive - why would they leave that decision until the end?

From the article on "The Tree of Life:" Being that they did a 4k DI, what was the advantage of shooting Regular 35? Grazie.

I did see Boyhood projected by an especially poor digital projector.

The projectors I see impress their own look onto the image.

I read that those were natural. Really, really poorly done but natural. Handheld done well though....

Brownie points if the flares are vfx anamorphic flares with no connection to any light source and the aspect ratio's not 2.39. I see that far too often. How did these trends start?

I couldn't tell when the stocks changed. The last few years certainly looked different than the first few but, without looking up the Vision timeline, I wouldn't care to guess what was used for each year. (Granted, I saw it digitally, which makes everything look bland.)

So why is HD commonly used for high speed shots? You can shoot 35mm at at least 2,500 fps and 65mm at at least 720 fps, fast enough, for most purposes. You might have to push the film a few stops but you'd still come out ahead, with image quality.

I found this thought provoking.

I figured but that doesn't seem to stop people, does it? Chroma key is used so widely. Other issues? I'd imagine that any kind of re-sampling could lead to noticeable softness.

I think the title says it all.

How big is the grain difference? The projection in my neck of the woods makes everything look the same. I know that Wally Pfister always goes (or went) for a no-grain look but he also always uses (or used) a 250D-500T combo and is (or was) comfortable pushing the 500T two stops. All with a 2/3 stop overexposure, though.

200T v 500T. There's such thing as too open ended, I guess. :D

I'll leave this open ended... Thanks for your thoughts.

How funny that filmmakers are racing to the top on screens that are racing to the bottom... :D

Why were theater owners happy to see 70mm go?