cole t parzenn

I saw "Interstellar," among other poorly projected and often interrupted films, at an Arclight. They didn't care about anything, really. (But "Psycho works surprisingly well in 2.39, I learned.) Anyway, what causes the prob;em with video projectors' blacks?

Two hour talk from both the first and second unit cinematographers.

I live in one of the ten largest cities in the US and I get to choose from the theater with clean screens but noisy projectors, the theaters with dirty screens but ok projectors, and the theaters with ok screens but terrible projectors (noisy and with green and magenta areas around high contrast boundaries - especially problematic, since they get most of the foreign films), so I'm not convinced that video projection has solved any problems, other than the cost of shipping prints. And that's leaving aside any comparisons to idealized film projection, to be clear. When I saw "Interstellar," the first reel was scratched (less than a week in) and the bottom half of the screen was out of focus.

Interesting. It's been a while since I last saw one of his films but the long lens never jumped out at me, until now. Nice to see "Stardust Memories" included.

So why is this? The most recent film I saw in theaters was "Ex Machina." The title cards aliased.

What about renting professional video cameras and moving around all the data (including the DIT's fee), versus renting professional film cameras and buying and processing film?

"Wolf" and "Monuments were hybrid productions, as I recall. It seems to me that "serious decline" is, at best, euphemistic. Re: budgeting, does video really scale up better than film?

Interesting. I would think that treating each 2x2 square as one three channel pixel would be computationally easiest and give the "truest" image.

"2001" was a sleeper hit, as was "The Shining" and, I presume, several other Kubrick films. "2001" was also unfinished, after four and a half years of production - I don't think that the comparison is warranted.

I saw that but wasn't sure what to make of the "Fries" name. I wonder about the lenses...

It's the originally intended anamorphic aspect ratio... And, if you finish at 4K, you gain vertical resolution! Is there an advantage to shooting 2.39 video anamorphically? I saw "Chef" in theaters and it didn't look bad but the resampling required just seems risky. I've heard that there are plans for 1.8x anamorphic lenses but you're still resampling by a non-integer multiplier on one axis. It seems to me that we should have just been using 21.29*17.78mm sensors, to begin with, since that's 35mm cine lenses are designed to cover.

I agree but aren't they doing both? As an aside, 6K "VV" is diffraction limited past f/4 and 8K "VV," f/2.8, ignoring interpolated color. It should look similar to Ursa footage, shouldn't it?

Well, I know of ONE available camera: a seller refurbished Mitchell FC - yours, for just $29,995! According to Wiki, they're BNCs, made bigger.

Fox contracted them, for Grandeur; Technicolor contracted them, for Process IV; the BNC was a longtime standard; Fox contracted them, again, for 65/70; the name "Mitchell" seems to still command respect - why?

Wishful thinking, by Mr. Edeson: From my experience with 70 millimeter cinematography on "The Big Trail," I can confidently say that the wider film is not only the coming medium for such great pictures, but that it will undoubtedly become the favored one for all types of picture.

Do you have any examples of Double-X pulled? I can't find any.

How much Fuji stock is left?

Could Kodak just be very bad at making MTF charts? According to the Vision 1 500T data sheet, it out-resolved Velvia, in blue and green. And EXR 500T wasn't far behind. This is interesting...

I get that intercuttablility is desirable but, since such disparate speeds are rarely intercut, I expected Kodak to have independently optimized the resolutions of the slow and fast stocks. How do you make a low resolving slow stock, anyway? And can it really be said to be inherently sharp? The MTF never gets significantly above 100, so there's no coarse detail enhancement, to make up for the fine detail loss. Did you mean that there was less apparent noise?

Could you elaborate?

500, 250, 200, and 50.

Other than the use of digital technology, was the cinematography of the Star Wars prequels notable?

50mm is slightly long, in 135; (24^2+36^2)^.5=43.3 (rounded).

Good point. The reason I asked, was that some of the films have a lot of overlap in style.

Is your list long, because you think that each of these films teaches a unique and necessary lesson or because watching many films is educational, in and of itself?