cole t parzenn

Has anyone else seen this one?

If you've seen it, you'll know it (this is actually the second shot - the first was just her eyes and that would just be mean); if you haven't seen it, you should watch it.

Manhattan

Someone already made that joke. ;)

Either there was a technical reason or the decision was made by idiots.

Yes, please give a hint.

Another easy one, while we wait:

Hint: It's Italian. (I reverse image searched it, out of curiosity.)

One of my favorites...

Peter Weir's great...

Another easy one:

Edit: The url includes the title, fyi.

Ideally, you would interpolate the "missing" frames and use three, then drop three. It should work better than adding blur to every other frame from 48 fps material, since it's just 1/3 of the information and the least important third, at that. But I don't have a 72 fps camera and interpolation software, so i haven't tested it.

I meant blending two frames and dropping the third, yes:

72/180: open close open close open close

24/180: open close

I think it was probably a mistake to shoot everything at 48 fps with a 270 degree shutter just in order to make the 24 fps version look less stuttery (if they had shot with a 180 degree shutter, the 24 fps version would have looked like it was shot with a 90 degree shutter - which would not be the end of the world to me, not for an action movie.)

Does 72 fps and a 180 degree shutter seem like the obvious choice to anyone else? 72 hz hasn't been used before, so audiences shouldn't associate it with anything, and you can synthesize a perfect 24/180 frame, because the first and second frames in a set of three consecutive 72/180 frames correspond to the first and third third periods of a 24/180 exposure.

I think that that's more or less what I meant, that subject and format size need to be considered?

But cropping isn't the same as using a different focal length; the dof is "baked in" and you're not capturing the subject with more film/sensor area for greater detail on the plane of focus.

It's easy to argue about the subjective.

Outside of mainstream Western film, perhaps? Razor thin as a stylistic choice seems more recent but I haven't seen a lot of true deep focus in any era.

I have a way of starting arguments on here, don't I? ;)

Pillarboxed 1.85, I mean. I don't mind pillarboxes on a tv but the not-quite-black lines on the sides of the image in a theater (with 1.89 digital projection) can be distracting. And having so much space on either side can make the framing feel off, to me.

I just saw it. (2K, 2.39 screen, bad blacks, blah blah blah) Underwhelmed by the writing but the visuals were batting 300.

Or a 1:1 chip and every aspect ratio supported... Brownie points, for anamorphic lenses.

S35/4K DI, according to IMDB.

I'd opt for whatever full aperture is...

You can only tell so much from a trailer but I already like this much more than any of Deakins's digital work, especially the motivated reverse key in the second trailer.

Haven't all of the Marvel movies been 2K DIs? I'm skeptical that they'll do an 8K DI and filmout, given all the CGI.

People buying it for the wrong reasons, I mean. ;)

http://www.kodak.com/ek/us/en/Consumer/Products/Super8/default.htm

Super 8 is a small negative but if you can shoot sync-sound and get a high quality scan economically... Well, we'll see what happens. I expect a few people to be disappointed, when they wait two weeks to get film back from their expensive new camera and it's approximately standard definition resolution, plus grain.

What do you guys think?