cole t parzenn

Lack of lenses aside, Technirama seems like the most practical ultra-wide format.

Apparently, it's already happening:

http://4k.com/movies/

No mention as to how or to what measure of success.

It's an intermediate film for making separations. The effective ISO is very low, probably single figures. Some people are using 16mm intermediate film in cameras, though.

I thought about that. Whatever they're referring to, they chose odd language.

I got a short email back from Andrew at Fotokem. He states they do have in their possession a decommissioned B&W 65mm processor that was used at IMAGICA up until 2004. Fotokem has never made it operational and said it would take some effort to do so. He said he'll get back to me on Monday to see if it is viable, with the amount of film my movie would use.

What's the difference between this equipment and 65mm color equipment?

I may move to L.A., just for the film screenings. Do you know the answers to any of my questions?

What of the look of Process IV came from the three strips and what came from the dye transfer printing? Was it a challenge to match orthochromatic and panchromatic emulsions? What Blu-Rays come closest to what Process IV films should look like?

So out of five Best Cinematography Oscar nominations this year, only one was shot on film...

Not many 2014 films were shot on film. But they include three of the eight best picture nominees. Of the top ten world wide box office draws, two were all film and two were hybrid. Not bad, considering what a vfx-heavy year it was.

I suspect it's an oversight but Fuji's MP FAQ states that they make MP black and white camera film.

I think the critical point for me is finding reasons to visit the cinema...

The music bit is wrong, FYI. The reason early CDs sounded poor was that mastering engineers didn't know how to master for a transparent medium. As evidenced by countless pleasant sounding recordings done with all-digital workflows, there's nothing inherently wrong with digital audio. And the music industry never left tubes behind, they're just reserved for specialty purposes, now that there are alternatives.

Was it effective? Some of the HFR material will have been captured at a point in time that the LFR material has no record for and I would imagine that that causes problems, especially with dynamic shots.

That's part of why "The Artist", a B&W silent film, shot on Kodak Vision3 color negative and then desaturated in post.

I read that they had wanted to shoot Plus-X but another production had gotten the last of it.

Well it's certainly no XX31 which if I remember correctly had the highest lp/mm numbers of any Kodak stock including 50D

According to the data sheet, it's 31/100 lines. But the xx22 data sheet says the same thing.

What edge effect did Plus-X have that other stocks lack?

If I may add, a lot of things have to go right, to make ANY movie; many more things have to go right, to make a good movie; I don't want to think about the obstacles, to a movie having a lasting impact. But that set definitionally includes time, as David noted. Humans also tend to enjoy comparing new things to old things.

Has anyone actually called for optical composites? Supposing the effects team wanted to, could they?

To me, the small screen doesn't do 4:3/Academy films justice. My perception is that 4:3/Academy, when projected, appears to be a paradoxically large frame, lending itself to more complex compositions and heavy use of negative space. I thought that visual language was wholly appropriate, for the story. Except the fake grain, though it was fairly benign, projected.

Is it only in 70, right now? That would explain why it's not in my city.

Could you elaborate?

Doesn't Kodak NEED a billion dollar license fee?

Other than specialty shots, did he use a second unit?

Funnily enough I was speaking to Larry Smith the other day and he's convinced Kubrick would have tested current digital cameras to exhaustion but would have chosen To continue to shoot film.

Go on...

EWS was lit to 1250, fwiw.

https://www.theasc.com/magazine/oct99/sword/pg1.htm

So... what image circle, do they project?

Tangential: were/are IPs used, because lots of INs were/are needed or because a satisfactory positive intermediate stock was never produced? (Or because a more complex and material-intensive printing process was/is more profitable, for film manufacturers and labs?)

Could you use a high speed camera as a projector?

I am lead to believe that Kubrick did all of his own handheld operating.

This thread makes me think of Wally Pfister. His lighting style was very naturalistic but he still lit as beautifully as anyone else and his handheld operating was superb.

People who saw this in IMAX, how bad was the strobing?

Thanks for the reply. Wow. I know that Nolan likes his shallow focus close-ups but that's... extreme. What were the light levels, on set?