cole t parzenn

... ... Tarantino's apparantly describing the format as "Super Cinemascope;" could he be letter-boxing a 2.39 image in the 2.2 70mm prints? I see no reason why he couldn't but I don't know of it having been done, before.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3460252/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec I'm not sure why that says 70/70, not 65/70. (But if Tarantino got Kodak and Arri or Panavision to retool for a new, even larger camera film gauge, go him!)

Moot, yes - still interesting, though. Thanks, everyone!

But are they printed to extend beyond the projector gate?

Thanks. So, what happens when the camera and print format are different, e.g., S35 or S16?

How visible would a splice be?

Makes sense. Hypothetically, how likely is it that the audio track would accidentically be projected, if the projector's aperture were the same as the camera's? I was thinking more about the projector's aperture/gate than the lens' but thank you - that's interesting, as well.

I've long wondered; camera apertures are pretty darn small, to begin with. Grazie.

Just curious.

And how/when did this start? Thanks.

Hee hee. It's just personal preference. :)

As a relatively technique-savvy audience member, unmotivated lighting annoys me. Sound is analyzed much less consciously than visuals. Richardson pulls it off, though. :)

See "Ida," if you get a chance. Beautiful black and white cinematography (albeit desaturated Alexa footage) and Academy compositions.

Hell, the GH4 is worth a good, close look. Who's seen "Upstream Color?" That was Rec. 709 from two upgrade cycles ago and it looked fantastic! (On the small screen, at least.)

80k buys more pizzas than professional movie cameras. ;) Cinematography technique is essentially the same in either medium; buy a super 16 or prosumer digital camera and save the bulk of that 80k for a future investment. There's a reason that - FIVE pages in - no one has recommended you buy the Alexa and most of us have advocated against it. Film labs scan the film for you, btw.

Buy a stills camera, **** up one 25 cent frame at a time until you get good. Problem solved. ;)

Well, let me ask: why are you so set on getting an Alexa? It's a good camera (I hate 2K on the big screen but damn, Hoyte made it look good on "Her") but it won't necessarily serve you well. Arri themselves advocate film for most uses and even the industry standard Alexa will be obsolete, not so far from now. There are better ways for you to spend 80k.

Sorry for your loss. There is a third option: standalone anamorphic elements of a lesser power, such as this. But, again, you would have to finish at a higher resolution. Best of luck!

It's the same idea, only the lens projects onto a 1.95:1 shaped piece of sensor, instead of a 1.95:1 shaped piece of film. Because a 4:3 sensor is taller than a 16:9 sensor (same width, more area), you crop just slightly from the sides and increase the vertical resolution by a third. Granted, this is moot, unless you upsample to 4K, as the vertical resolution will bottleck (there are no anamorphic digital projectors). Some people use anamorphic lenses anyway, because they like the look, but it's not necessarily more "filmic" - the vast majorities of Tarantino's, Spielberg's, and Scorsese's filmographies were shot spherically, along with the entireties of Kubrick's, Welles's, and Hitchcock's.

I really wish you would read the links we post :(; they're quite helpful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_format

No mimicking the "anamorphic look;" lenses are what they are. If you kept the receipt, you could replace your Alexa with the 4:3 one but, frankly, it doesn't seem like any Alexa is going to serve you very well, based on the questions you've asked. Sorry. :/

You don't. You either crop a tall image wide or squeeze a wide image tall.

Wider field of view. Read. And I'm always happy to share my (very, very limited, in this field) knowledge. :)

Shooting with anamorphic lenses, you do use much more vertical sensor/film area - typically, twice the amount. Most commonly (by an especially long country mile), an area of 18 by 21.95mm is used. The camera lens squeezes the wide image to fit the tall film frame and the projector lens does the reverse.