cole t parzenn

Moneyball, 2011, shot on Vision 3, with primo lenses (S35/4K DI) Availability and quality of frame grabs varied widely; there are more Moneyball frames here but I didn't want to create a sixth post. Fifty images should be a sufficient showcase of Pfister's work, in any case. (I could've posted fewer but, as time goes on, Pfister's work gets so pretty - I didn't want to stop looking up stills.) There isn't a whole lot of information available on Pfister's process but I've pieced together this much: More than anything else, he wants his work to not appear to be lit He invariably uses the latest and fastest Kodak stocks More than most, he coordinates with other department heads, to get the exact colors, textures, and light that he wants on screen On set, he prefers to shape the look of the film with changes in exposure, rather than stocks and lenses I'll leave any further commentary to those more qualified than I and just ask, what is he doing that brings out the red in actors' faces?

Inception, 2010, shot on Vision 3 (and HD?), with Primo, C, E, G, and System 65 series lenses (scope, lazy-eight, cropped 65, and - possibly - S35) Oscar winner Continued...

The Prestige, 2006, shot on Vision 2, with C and E series lenses (except one vfx plate, shot in IMAX) The Dark Knight, shot on Vision 2, with C and E series super speeds (modified Hasselblad lenses, for IMAX scenes) Continued...

Batman Begins, 2005, shot on Vision 2, with C and E series lenses The first of four consecutive Oscar nominations Continued...

With ArcLight programming several of his films, this coming month (some, on film!), I thought that now would be a good time to have a thread for the interesting but little discussed work of Wally Pfister. Memento, 2000, shot on Double X and Vision 1, with E series lenses Laurel Canyon, 2002, shot on Vision 1, with Primo lenses Continued...

Now you have me curious - how well do 60s prints hold their color?

I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you saying that backgrounds only appear sharp, because objects are too small for the lack of detail to be apparent? Do you know what focal lengths were used most? In the absence of the negative, yes, I'm judging a stock by the video transfers available. (What are you judging it by?) As for the uniqueness, we may be miscommunicating. I agree, it can look very similar to 5250 and I think there's something special about the way it looks, here.

Maybe I only think 5251's special, because I only see the good films shot with it. But still, the skin tones in "2001" seem more... nuanced, somehow, than with most. If you take another look at this frame, you can still see all the colors in the actors' faces, even though they're lit with a warm light. Don't a lot of stocks lose that kind of detail, under those lighting conditions? Yet the bold colors of the sets and props remain saturated... The last Fuji stocks seemed to have some similar properties but Vision 3 can't do that, can it? I find it interesting that you describe the depth of field as shallow. While it's not Citizen Kane deep, the only shallow focus shots that I can think of have subjects unusually close to the camera. Thanks!

I took a closer look - you were right, as usual; the shadows came from above. Well, how would you characterize the stock? I just re-watched the scene - the monolith, Earth, and Sun are all in the wrong place, then. :D But how was it lit? Is that an observation or did you read that, somewhere? (If so, where?) Anyway, does anything about the cinematography strike you as unusual or special?

No new IMAX films are being made???

I love the cinematography of "2001: A Space Odyssey" but I can't put my finger on why. It's often in deep focus and often lit on the hard side, with lots of practicals, three things I really like but there's something else about it.The brilliant costumes, production design, compositions, and 5251 magic all contribute, I'm sure, but plenty of films have brilliant costumes, production design, and compositions and 5251 was used for, what, a decade? Was there any exposure or optical voodoo used? Was there something special about the contrast ratios? Granted, I don't know a whole lot about deconstructing lighting but I can't, for the life of me, figure out what makes "2001" look so damn good. (Though I have noticed that light does some weird things, in certain scenes.) This looks to me to be two soft lights, one above and one in front of the actors. Is that right? If so, what makes is so... great? This looks like a big, warm soft light in front of the actors, with the background filled out by practicals. Simple isn't bad but, again, what's making this so special? This frame, I can kind of say what I like about. The effect of the glowing, colored lights on Dave is lovely and so is the contrast between the glowing lights and the negative space, where they don't reach. This frame, I can't really figure out. Floyd's lit by a hard source in front of and above him but what's lighting the rest of the booth? Maybe it's just the nature of a white room but light seems to be doing something weird, here. The whole ceiling's a top light but the actors seem to also be subtly backlit (am I seeing slight shadows on their faces?). By what, though? There are shadows on the floor, behind them, so how much light can be coming from the rear of the set? What makes this shot look so interesting? It should just be a single hard light, representing the Sun, right? This may not have been purposeful but here's another shot that has light doing something weird. Judging by the shadow on the Earth, there should be sunlight coming in from the side but instead, it's just bouncing off of the Earth and casting shadows on the Moon. As for the actors, are they only lit by practicals? Last still, another "glowing" frame. Is this all practical? Could there have been a warming filter? Thanks, in advance, for any insight you can give.

I understand that 2K is cheaper than 4K but isn't it still more expensive than scanning a timed IP? Is the correct question, "How did DIs become standard?" What's special about 1080?

And, in anticipation of this conversation turning to digital projection, why 1.89?

And why kibis?

They're lovely, I agree, I just don't know what makes them lovely. Is the three strip process inherently more saturated?

What happens when the original is 4:2:0?

What makes you say that 35mm is equivalent to 6K and Super 16, just under 4K? At 60 lp/mm, S35 should resolve about 2880 lines and S16, about 1502. Even Velvia would only get (coincidentally) 3840 lines from S35, right? As for HD, every pixel becomes a square of four pixels, right? If you recorded 1080 8 bit 4:2:0, could it still look sharper, just by virtue of the increased number of pixels (more tightly packed color elements, finer noise, etc.)? And the shows recorded in 1080 8 bit 4:4:4 should definitely look sharper, if only because the chroma subsampling is done away with, right?

For whatever my opinion's worth, I think UHD is silly. (Granted, I think that Technirama should be the standard format for 2.39.) But, if UHD does become the next home video format, how will the countless hours of 2K films be refinished? Surely the HD versions of some will be upscaled and become the new UHD versions but, for the stuff that does get a proper UHD refinish, what will that process be? Go back to the negative/raw files?

What made the color rendition of 3-strip special?

So where are the prints that are made going?

And what factors into that decision? Most major productions still have prints made, it seems, but how many are made and where do they go?

What's the striped color array? I'm a little surprised by the results of the test you mention. I don't think I've seen any F65 (I was thinking of the HD CineAltas) material but Reds often make actors look like life-size plastic figurines, to my eye. (Though I've never seen Red footage at 4K...) Also, while a 60 lp/mm stock in S35 is, in theory, 2.88K equivalent, the Alexa, in theory, shouldn't match it, having an OLPF and a Bayer array - right? As an interesting-to-me aside, this is reminding me of seeing "August: Osage County," in 2K. It was low enough resolution that I couldn't make out the insignias on cars in wide shots but the images relayed textures in a way that I've never seen from video.

And why are the D-21 and Alexa relatively sharp? Even via overly-compressed internet video, film (and, to a lesser extent, the Arris) is much sharper. I'm thinking of the Reds, CineAltas, and Genesis, in particular.

How is video blur different from film blur?

I was going to ask about this. In theory, 2K down sampled from 4K has more color information per pixel (and fewer or less severe artifacts), so would there be a visible difference between the two, viewing at 2K or 1080?