cole t parzenn

I'm surprised you guys liked it; it seemed low-effort, to me (anyone else notice that the "Boyhood" image was in the wrong aspect ratio?).

Did you have any problems with the rolling shutter or dynamic range? I take the jpegs with a grain of salt but the sky directly behind the actress's head looks blown-out. How'd you shoot the plates?

Again, the word that comes to mind is "lovely!" I look forward to seeing it.

How'd the rear-projection shots come out? That's a big job for a stills camera. Was/is it standard to let the live action camera lens crop the background plate, rather than shoot and project the background plate to match the shot size?

Well, when consumers want copies of things, we want copies we can create more copies of. That's kind of the point, even if only for personal use.

I had a similar idea once but did the math and basically realized that Kodak charges for real estate so there aren't real cost savings if the negative area gets similar to a 35mm format.

What about processing? If you could do four frames, you'd use virtually the same area as scope. (Actually, ~.8% more.) I imagine you'd have to build the camera more or less from scratch and reels wouldn't last long but, so long as we're thinking out loud, it seems worthy of mention. And 2X anamorphic lazy-four would use ~48% more negative than R35, for aspect ratios greater than 1.5.

What do you think about that? Are there any great cinematographers without distinctive style?

Robert Elswitt? Shouldn't this be in "Cinematographers?"

+1 to Trumbull's site and "Blade Runner"'s effects.

Since most older movies can only be seen in a video transfer, the color subtleties of using or not using the 85 filter in daylight are near impossible to see. John Alcott was probably the most vocal proponent of not using the 85 filter and "Barry Lyndon" is a good example, if you can see a print in a theater. He specifically felt that the greens of nature were reproduced more vibrantly by skipping the 85; besides "Barry Lyndon" you might be able to see this Alcott's photography of "Greystoke".

This reminds me of Lubezki not using the 85 on "The Tree of Life," because it "homogenizes" the color. What causes that effect? Why is correcting in post different?

Lovely! To my eye, the look is familiar but doesn't stick out as a particular emulsion. I like the range of DOF. What's the grain like?

So, how'd you settle on overexposed medium speed film and Super-Speeds and why would EXR and 2393 have been better?

Ah - thanks! What steps are between scanning a timed IP and projecting a DCP?

Re: Scanning the IP, why scan the IP rather than a showprint? Intermediate stocks are designed to print and be printed from while release stocks are designed to hold the desired image, right? And how many prints do you have to make to warrant intermediates?

Looking forward to seeing frame grabs.

That's what I get for not watching the full trailer! Wow - that was a lot of distortion, on the door grate.

Interesting - thanks for posting. What stood out as being anamorphic, to you, David? I only caught one brief flare.

Did the airplane's camera lenses look conspicuously VFX-y to anyone else?

 

I was trying to answer the question about resolution loss from cropping a 2K 4:3 anamorphic 2.40 recording to get a 16:9 HD full-frame image. My point was that the resolution loss was only in the horizontal (you end up having to uprez 1365 to 1920 pixels) but that might be visually offset from the fact that the vertical resolution was a downsample from 1536 to 1080 pixels. So I'm not sure the point you are trying to make, a 4:3 anamorphic 2.40 ARRIRAW recording might give you enough resolution to oversample, but he was asking about a 2K ProRes recording and knowing that he would be cropping 2048 to something less than 1920.

I was just noting that the 2K full color image is already downsampled from the 2.8K Bayer.

a loss of horizontal resolution but a gain in vertical, so I think it would be a wash and be OK for TV

The Alexa is already over sampled - are you really gaining anything?

I've heard of rear projection through glass. I'd imagine that that's a fair bit brighter than conventional projection.

For whatever my opinion's worth, I can't picture an Alexa shot Blade Runner but I also can't picture a Vision3 shot Blade Runner.

Muy interesante! Are you enjoying working photochemically? I'm trying to picture overexposed but diffused medium speed stock but I can't - it sounds cool, though.

Diffuse clip lights?

Yep, I absolutely saw it in 2k. Very few theaters have 4k projectors.

If Arclight's using 2K, just like everyone else, what makes them the premier theater chain in Southern California?

About the dynamic range, that could have been from them maxing out contrast for Dolby Vision, if they didn't do a separate grade for standard projection. (I'm assuming they didn't.)

"Ex Machina" was shot anamorphically, so the resampling would have been different. I didn't notice any aliasing, other that the title cards.

Kind of my point. ;)

maybe the digital IMAX version?

I was wondering that, too. From what I've read, "lie-max" is mostly or all 2K but one in my city advertised 4K screenings of Interstellar. According to IMDB, IMAX screenings will be 1.90, so they're presumably using the full width of the chip, at least, at whichever resolution.

I find Tyler's report of aliasing interesting - not much should alias supersampled 4K, right? Perhaps it was caused by resampling, if they shot full width?

It's not unusual to mix the two, "A Million Ways to Die in the West" did that too -- they are both Sony cameras for one thing, but the main reason for switching to the F55 is usually they need a smaller, lighter camera for something like Steadicam work.

Makes sense - thanks. Think there'll be a visible difference? I couldn't tell with "Ex Machina" but that was shot anamorphically and finished at 2K.

From what I read on Film-Tech (so it could be wrong) they are formatting the 2.20:1 image letter boxed within the 1.85:1 DCP container. So its not using the full width of the chip.

 

I assume common width screens in cinemas without masking (e.g. imax) will be fine.

My local Odeon cinema has 2.39:1 shape screens with no masking. 1.85:1 films are shown pillarbox on the screens, with black bars on the side (masking is not moved). If Tomorrowland is coming from a 1.85:1 DCP with a 2.20:1 letterbox within the 1.85:1 frame - the worse result could be a tiny postage stamp image with blackbars on all sides.

That's unfortunate. One would hope that DCPs/digital projectors would be "smart" enough to let filmmakers use as much of the frame as they felt necessary and zoom in or out accordingly. But I've seen 2.2 projected twice: once on a large 2.39 screen and once on an oversized 1.85 screen. For whatever my opinion's worth, 2.2 on an oversized 1.85 screen is brilliant while 2.2 on a 2.39 screen is boxy, so, if that's their intention, it may be a good move.

According to IMDB, they used the F55 and F65. Anyone have an idea of why they'd mix the two?

Anyone anticipate problems with projection?

Super-35 is 24.89mm wide.

Is this intended to be perforation to perforation? I wasn't sure I'd seen that number before, so I checked Wikipedia - interestingly, Wiki lists different numbers for the perforation to perforation gate width of S35, VV, and Technirama. (Though the difference between VV and Technirama is possibly a rounding or conversion error.)