cole t parzenn

Yeah, it's thoughtless racking that gets to me.

There are no good answers -- I noticed in "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" a few scenes where they "ping-ponged" the focus a few too many times, i.e. rack-focus to someone in the background for their line, rack-focus to the near person for their response, rack-focus back to the farther person for their next line, they leave frame, then rack-focus back to the foreground person left in the frame.

Gah! What I really hate is when focus starts on the far actor, so that the near actor is on the edge of acceptable focus and you don't notice that they're soft until they're racked to, after which focus becomes ridiculously distracting. Either put everyone in focus or open up enough for proper separation! /rant, carry on...

 

Yes! 2perf is natively 2.40:1 or something like that so you if you are not shooting in a cinemascope style aspect ratio you have to crop the negative heavily. I think that Kodak are doing this in this case (even tho it works heavily against them) as some broadcast outlets demand 16:9 only. No letterboxing. So Kodak are showing how well it holds up even in a not so ideal situation.

 

Freya

It seems very uneconomical but it's a bigger increase in negative area over S16 than S35 is over R35. (9*9*1.78)/(12.52*12.52/1.78)=1.637

I wouldn't count on PTA returning to large format; he shot "The Master" in 65mm, because it served the story, just like he shot "Inherent Vice" in 35mm with a fast stock, because it served the story.

My least favorite work by the great Bob Richardson. 70mm or not. The lighting just was impossible for me to believe.

 

Neal Norton

More than his other films? Richardson is the one cinematographer that can make me not care about lighting motivation.

What about diopters?

"The Tree of Life" is pretty much the parody pretentious art-house film about everything and nothing seen in the background of television shows. But it's also a **(obscenity removed)** masterpiece - Malick's a legend for a reason and I'll be making a point of seeing this.

Kubrick also kept editing after the initial showings.

What did you do and how did it turn out?

2880 is ~2048*sqrt2, so the Alexa is downsampling a bayered image with approximately twice the pixel count of the finished frame, same as the F65. Unless I'm even worse at math than I thought, which is a possibility I acknowledge. ;)

What's the difference between the F65/Super CCD's turning a 2x target resolution sensor 45 degrees and the Alexa's using an unrotated 2x target resolution sensor?

Speaking of oversampling, does anyone know of a production windowboxing 5.6K in the Red, to be posted the same as ARRIRAW, for 4K delivery?

Wasn't "Barry Lyndon" also push processed?

May I take a moment to defend George Lucas? poop on his writing all you want but he's about as good as any other director at creating the illusion that the world of the film extends beyond the framelines.

Carry on hating JJ and 2K. I watched the first ten minutes of each of his shitty action movies with Star Trek trademarks thrown in - that was enough JJ, for one lifetime.

Re: time, according to Douglas Trumbull, "2001" is unfinished; Kubrick just wrote and shot and wrote and shot until he ran out of money.

This year, meaning the most recent season or the upcoming season?

According to IMDB, "Orange Is the New Black" is 1080p Alexa. It looks like the Alexa to me, FWIW.

The record store shot is one of few that I'd say are conspicuously wide angled - that the focal length was a mere 9.8mm is kind of my point!

How is "bugeye" different than "fisheye?" Here are a few distorted non-POV shots with lots of straight lines. Some shots in and around the pod bay are also distorted and have straight lines:

I've only seen references to "2001" using Panavision lenses.

Changing to a relatively long lens for close ups probably accounts for some of the difference between his look and that of a film like "The Tree of Life" but there seems to be more going on.

So why aren't 16mm productions using 35mm lenses and 35mm productions, 65mm lenses?

Higher quality glass or the same quality glass but more of it? You're still magnifying your glass more, the smaller the format you use.

I don't seem to be the only person to have mistaken his use of wide angle lenses for deep focus. Now that I know to look for wide angle effects, it's as though I see a new fisheye shot, each time I watch "2001." "Eyes Wide Shut" and "The Tree of Life" were shot with similar focal lengths, according to "American Cinematographer," but I have to watch carefully to see just how wide EWS is, while obvious wide angle effects are a defining characteristic of TToL's look. The minimal apparent depth distortion can be (at least partly) explained by Kubrick's tendency to match actor and camera blocking and symmetrical composition but that's as far as I've gotten.

You get 2.88 times the focal length on lenses which means, you can buy much cheaper glass and the imperfections won't show.

How does focal length affect the visibility of optical imperfections? Shouldn't that be the other way around, anyway, since larger formats require less magnification?

Are you able to shoot at 72 fps? You should be able to fake 24/180 by shooting 72/180, interpolating the "missing" frames, and blending a real-interpolated-real frame sandwich, then skipping the next three frames (interpolated-real-interpolated). In theory.

 

That's the new school of film making. No rehearsals and no light. Ugh!!

 

G

"Interstellar" interiors were 500 ASA and T2-2.8, right? Was there enough light for the humans to see? ;)

On the topic of what resolution film should be scanned at, is digital having different resolutions for each angle to the frame edges (i.e., being grid-based) taken into account? You sometimes hear mention of the nyquist limit but only at the angles at which digital has the highest resolution, anyway.

The 1959 "Ben Hur" is the third "Ben Hur." Well, the third "Ben Hur" film - the original "Ben Hur" is a book.

What aspect ratio(s) would you be using?

For some reason all the 1.85 shots seem to in 2:1...

Ha! They are!

Re: Willis, I'd've included something from "Stardust Memories." That film deserves more attention.