cole t parzenn

San Diego cinemas, in a nutshell. Ouch. But "Casino" is a damn good film; I don't think I'd watch it out of focus but I might settle for a scratched reel.

I would presume that Panavision will modify contemporary lenses and that the prints will be letterboxed. I'm curious what the printing process will be - can you print that way, optically? Printing digitally (I know that Richardson likes DIs and that 8K DIs aren't entirely unprecedented), could you deanamorphicize by printing non-square pixels or would you need to resample?

Can you share what stops Interstellar was shot at? I was sitting in the front row, so I couldn't get up, in the middle. I complained, after, and was spoken to quite rudely. (ArcLight, in San Diego.)

Thirded.

35mm - scratched and out of focus. Didn't really think about the cinematography, which I like.

Why did front screen projection never replace rear screen? How do/did you keep the screen from being washed out by the movie lights? I've read that part of the reason blue screens were used for travelling mattes was that the film recorded blue with the highest fidelity, so its removal left the fewest artifacts. But travelling mattes would have been done with tungsten balanced stocks, so the blue layer would have been the fastest, right? Was I misinformed or do tungsten stocks really record blue with the highest fidelity, because ______? How was this/this done? (One of two "2001" effects, that I don't yet know.) How were the prisms done? (The other "2001" effect.) Also, how was it composited? At what frame rate was this shot at and was the film pushed? (2.5...) How was this done? Many thanks.

8K for any gate width? The IMAX projector aperture is shorter than 5/70 is wide.

What negative resolves 280 lines per mm?

:huh: All will be known, tonight, which is just a few hours, for European members. There's no need to speculate.

Why would a zoom suffer less from diffraction? At what aperture do you find diffraction start to become noticeable, in motion picture?

The AC article indicates otherwise: "Kubrick framed Eyes Wide Shut in the standard 1.85:1 format;" I wonder how that rumor started. Could you elaborate on the effects of optical printing?

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

I've read of some theaters listing a 3D version...

If the glasses are passive, they're polarized filters and, if they're active, they're shutters, right? Why would they cause softness?

With digital post-production and exhibition, is reversal still a hindrance? What if Ferrania's Scotch Chrome looks great and is made available in cine 35? Would it get used?

Why so rarely?

Why not shoot MP (theatrical or television) on reversal? It's been done. Two stores near me carry disposable cameras.

With his four Oscar noms, I'm curious, is there some technical aspect of his work that speaks to other cinematographers?

What voodoo gives Velvia 100 the same (or higher?) resolution as Velvia 50? Is the relationship between resolution and speed (in stops) generally linear?

Are my eyes playing tricks on me or digital de-anamorphization make the grain look spherical, while optical de-anamorphization makes it look stretched? If the latter, why? I saw film projection for the first time in I-don't-know-how-long, last night (Insomnia, shot in scope by Wally Pfister on Kodak 5246 and 5279, printed on Fuji F-CP 3519D) and it raised a few questions: How much of the grain (there was plenty) comes from the camera stocks, the three generations' removal from the negative, and the small format, respectively? If resolution and graininess can be separated, is the resolution of a print limited by the negative, the printing process, or both? With blowups and reductions, is there a visible difference in resolution, or just visible graininess? Why or why not? In wide shots, a character's corduroy jacket seemed to induce very subtle moire, like there were lines going in both directions. But film doesn't moire, so what was I seeing? Maybe it's the cinematography and not the projection but the close ups looked really good. Better than I've seen from digital projection. I'm not sure that I'd say there was more detail in the actors' faces but there was somehow more nuance. Any idea why this was? Grazie.

Why is the compression so bad, by the way?

Pity that my city has no 70mm...

Well, if it is more difficult to tell that background objects are not sharp, with wide angle lenses, would that mean that wide angle lenses have lesser requirements for acceptable sharpness? Are these shots considered deep focus? Each have objects out of focus but the overall impression is of a sharp image with depth.

But what caused the weird skin tones? The most recent Red footage I've seen still looks plasticky.

How were people rating their stocks, back then?