Nate Downes

27th works for me too.

You know David, this made me think a bit. We sit here and look like a bunch of old gearheads arguing weither a fuel injection system is truer than a carbeurator. In short, dull, boring shop talk that, in the end, means nothing. So what if O'Brother was HD, 2k, 4k or chiseled by aliens with big elbows, the movie was downright hilarious. My wife interjected at this point of my typing: "It is not about what it looks like, it is about what it makes you feel... I use punctuation when I talk." And she's right. The nitty specs about how it was done mean little, what you feel about it means everything. And seeing what I have of The Dark Knight, if Nolan is half as good as he was in Memento and Batman Begins... we will feel something absolutely incredible. I, for one, am seeing it on IMAX, nothing else will do. 8)

Just got back from seeing Wall-E on the big screen, film print. I was amazed over the visuals, the incredible storytelling, the use of silent-movie techniques to tell a story. I was also amused over the slight Apple insertions throughout, from the iPod, Apple TV, and even Wall-E's boot-up sound right off of my PowerMac at home. It made the whole movie appealing to the whole family. Throughout I kept telling myself "This looks like anamorphic or cinemascope." Then, as the credits rolled, I turned around and looked up at the projector.... and right into a clear 2:1 cinemascope lens with the logo still across the bottom. I stood for a full two minutes processing that, then turned my wife around and showed her. I got the usual "smile and nod" from her as I usually get when I talk camera. Some may not classify the DoP on a CGI movie as a cinematographer, but I would never dare to after seeing this. Weither you see through an eyepiece, ground glass, parralex, monitor, or a computer pre-render, the same eye and skill is required. To deny the talent, the eye, is to deny our own skill. What matter is it if we visualize onto a piece of cellulose, a CCD/CMOS, or into a computers memory bank, what matters truely is, what does the audience see? And here, in Wall-E, they see the beauty and art, and the touching story of a rolling trash compactor.

Working on timing first, while I try and secure higher-quality sources from the directors. I already have a better copy of the B&W footage now, just need to insert it into place now. Still working on getting a better copy of Phobia (the low-light horror) now. I am surprised tho that nobody's commented on the 1-light transfer footage (the building exploding and the running scene in the woods)

Don't blame you there, looking to moving to the Seattle area myself (easy access to LA without being tied to it). Well, we must do this before you depart definately. Ok, so, we have to do this on a sunday, but not the 13th, but before august 8th... um... any suggestions?

**checks, plays on Windows, Mac, Linux, Solaris, and a 1987 Amiga 2000 w/ 68040 accelerator...** It's an avi using an mp4 compression codec, so should be pretty general for systems to play. I do have the ability to re-save it as a .mov or h264 as well if you'd rather.

I guess as such, but knowing at least 1 title for a RED camera is 1 more than I had before now, isn't it? I myself loved the piece, and yes, I do understand German, and know the movie it is from, so I turned the sound off rather than get the juxposition.

Manure is on RED correct?

Hardly. It would, infact, be more difficult to build a digital version. Remember, every time your diagonal width doubles, you get 4x the opportunity for critical defects to render the chip worthless. With a chip that size, we'd be looking at wafers per chip, not chips per wafer, and at a cost of several thousand per-wafer (not counting processing the wafer or testing) that is not a concept I want to even contemplate. but it does remind me of one digital cinema idea I had, of using a reduction element with a focal plane on one side and a smaller sensor on the other. Gives you the larger DoF w/o the need for a larger sensor, making the whole unit cheaper to produce.

It's surprisingly easier to design a lens that focuses onto a concave curved surface than a flat or convex. Open up one of the Kodak throw-away cameras for an example. Now, I wouldn't seriously do it (even I'm not that nuts) but the idea is funny to consider. The issue with the lenses is that focusing becomes nearly impossible, as the focal plane is no longer uniform. Saddest thing is, I know a guy that kept wanting me to design him just such a system. He could not grasp why it was not a practical solution to his needs.

Killing time waiting for more work, for me anyways. FL film productions really slowed down as of late. I also find a good lively discussion good for the spirit. But it can get out of hand, as this one has almost become, where nobody is actually discussing, and instead making blanket claims and sitting on them. (I include myself within this group)

Are you eye'ing that vistavision cam on ebay there Glen?

Hm. Andrew, when do you get back from the american west then?

*pst* I noticed how Tom could not comment about how filmstock *gasp* changes it's image quality as they make newer stocks....

You know, this wouldn't be that hard to build either.... 8)

I'll agree here 100%. I will, however, also note that this limit will change with time, as newer film technologies and scanner technologies are developed. So, rules that apply to EXR with a film scanner from 2003 probably do not work so well with Vision3 and a brand new scanhead. A lot of digitals resolution can be attributed to computer enhancement, and the same can be said of film done through a DI as well. Grain reduction vs interpolation of pixels, both are done, and both can push the boundaries beyond the original emultion/sensor. We have, in the end, a wonderful time for cinema, with more choices than ever for the DP. From antique hand-cranked cameras to the RED and beyond, more tool choices means more options means more creativity with todays cinematographer, and I think everyone here can agree, more choice is a good thing.

Again, an old arguement, just with new numbers. You decry me spouting rhetoric, yet here you are. Why do we not agree to disagree and instead focus on the real issue, the right way of lighting a scene with a birthday cake within it?

I wasn't sure if it was 2k or 4k but I did know it was one of the first to use digital scanning for FX shots.

I have not found a reference for this. Earliest reference to a 4k scan I've found was for 1998's Pleasantville, but not dismissing the claim for T2 either.

I think that could be workable.

A study from 2003 is what you cite as evidence? With how many generations of aquisition and printing technologies between then and now? One of the fun things about technology, it keeps marching on. In 2003, you had Vision stock, early 2k scanners, and early render-to-film technologies. Now you have Vision3, 8k scanners and laser printing...

c'mon 1915 version of Golem....

I actually do a lot of refurbishing of my own parts, including remounting from one lens mount to another, and would enjoy the challenge of working with them.

It does not mean it is not either. I have had this arguement before, when people claimed that film could never handle 2k scans, then that 4k would be a waste... And I will hear it all again when people are debating the validity of 16k scans.

Thank you. And thanks for that link, finding post houses is difficult at times, and I'll add that to the list for these guys.