Ari Michael Leeds

I've seen more than a few DPs use this approach (though I like numbers and meters and experience, myself, knowing the range of what I'm working with), but it's also been done in the Polaroid era with Kubrick, so there's definitely something to it, if you have your system locked down. "Cumbersone." Compared to a Super 8, sure. But compared to any of thte other equipment, the smallest light you are carrying around, it's a strap over your shoulder. Compared to women carrying purses, ACs always carrying their equipment belt, is cumbersome really a fair description of a tiny camera?

Isn't the whole thing with lasers so they can replace Xenon bulbs, not any real improvement in quality? IMAX is notorious for letting its marketing department define "improvements" that don't coincide with scientific reality. I've never seen it, but they've cried wolf so many times in the past, I'd have to see side by side to really trust any IMAX laser system's stated quality improvements. And they didn't bother to even make it available for 15/70, making any real quality kinda a moot point. That's still the gold standard, there, not that they want us to know, remember, or look at the studies and tests.

But where did I say 16K? And where did you get that from 8K? If you noticed, I said 11K or 12K. So a contact from that, pin registered, would have, IDK 10% loss? Certainly not anywhere near as much as optical printing. 8K is 1/4 the resolution of 16K, just like 2K is 1/4 the resolution of 4K, assuming the same aspect ratios.

If you have a contact print, a show print from a 15/70 negative, before it goes through the projector lens mind you (see a 4K projector isn't 4K either as the chip goes through a lens too B) ) that's gotta be at least 10K on the film. My understanding is there is 50% loss whenever you go through a lens. So, with only 5% or so better on the 2K files than the BluRay, if we wanna get really technical, the BluRay doesn't go through a lens, and even with compression, would be a better resolution than the 2K DCI through a lens.

David: You are making a math error. As we are talking about area, 16K is FOUR times, not twice 8K. Unlike digital, it's completely unnecessary to exaggerate the credentials and the resolution of IMAX 15/70 B)

But 8K is less than half the resolution, Scott. . .

You're going to love this: This forum requires a real name. HOWEVER, the International Association of Theatrical and Stage Employes Local # 600, does not. You've made more than one assumption, then, I assume from Googling my name, Stuart, and finding nothing on my IMDB? I guess I know how pretty actresses feel with their more persistent male fans. Why don't you call the Guild Office and double check on that, since you automatically defer to authority, place such an emphasis on "real sets," and have second guessed everything I have contributed in threads here you have read. I've worked on the same productions with Emmy and Oscar winners. So I know my way around a set, thank you very much. David, you are right, and I am sorry for derailing this thread. But boy this guy reminds me of some of the real tyrants I have worked with, and have bitten my tongue so hard that it bleeds. They always manage to be so courteous and sound as if their parents taught them manners when they're on the phone, hiring you, too.

Well, Tyler, my BluRay cost I think $100, seven years ago. It has lasted, what, two generations of laptop? I honestly don't understand the aversion to instrumentalities, especially one that is backwards-compatible with DVD and CD. And that is with the admission that I find it stupid and ironic that companies would go back to a spinning disc after convincing everyone to drop records for cassettes. It happens to be a stupid, fragile instrumentality but as opposed to the cloud, a compact disc is not a bad investment. Makes more sense than the people with the HDTVs who still don't have HD, and a DVD player only in lieue of anything else, or HD streaming but no investment in anything to plug that into the TV set. There is plenty of glitchiness and hickups with Netflix and the like, and that's with a new computer and the fastest speeds. Pretty sure, at least with Netflix it's more compressed than what comes on the set, even cable. Not sure about the 4K services, but there seems to be plenty of obvious drawbacks that streaming hasn't solved in over a decade now.

Yes, that's right, Christian. 10 12.5 16 20 25 32 40 50 64 80 100 is the ASA progression. Then DIN is every 3 is a stop. This 0.3 is a stop. With E6 you don't need to worry about IR (it doesn't see it) just UV. A standard UV filter works great, and think they have some that may combine that with other filters, so you don't have to stack too many. If you get UV that mostly just shows up as exaggerated blues (they see UV but you end up with cyan + magenta = blue dyes rendering it). So you won't have to worry about IR filtration with ND filters. I will say that, some NDs are better than others. I'm lucky, I have a densitometer so I can actually read them to see if they are purely neutral, same with gelatins. So just a standard UV will work fine for you, and ND filters you'll have no issues as-is. Good luck. And thanks, John E. Clark, for pointing out what I shouldn't have left out.

"To differentiate themselves." I know that you are a film guy, but that sounds exactly like what someone says before they go and shell out tens of thousands to get an extra K. That's an approach that has failed time and again, and it's something to sell cameras, not something that the consumer wants. I am a HUGE consumer of movies of TV. However, I can't think of a situation where I'd conceivably stop watching a TV show because there's a different show on Netflix at 4K. And the budgets on those, not always, but a lot, suck. Seeing low-budget sets in 4K if anything brings out into the open low production values they'd be better off hiding. Isn't the overall trend CUTTING budgets? 4x the spatial resolution for low budget mush I wouldn't clal an improvement. That goes for film, digital, 2K 4K, anything, really.

"as they're all shooting in this way to differentiate from TV broadcast." -Sorry, Tyler, but I'm going to have to interject on behalf of the [non] reader here who doesn't care about cinematography. No one watches something because it's in 2K or not on their computer who is not a filmmaker. That is a filmmaker fantasy. I'm no techie, and laugh at "filmmakers" who want to know how old my laptop is, but my 2014 DESKTOP computer can't stream 1080P properly. Netflix is glitchy and doesn't look like full 1080P HD when I stream it. I still rely upon my TV set for watching HD content, along with BluRays. No issues with glitches, crashes, Then again, I'm not into dumping thousands of dollars into this. I'm sure there are some very good laptops out there, but I for one am not willing to frequently invest and reinvest the money into financing their development. My 2009 BluRay player and 2005 TV do just fine in delivering me HD content. I go out if I want over 2K :-D

I have not read the whole thread either, just most of the first couple pages. But Stuart has shown similar hostility - and my criticism is directed solely at him - condescension to me, and that is the first thing I see trying to tune back in, which I reacted viscerally to. And he continues it with "Should you ever actually stumble onto a set, you might realize that." Having worked on many sets with people who have absolute "scum of the Earth" attitudes, I tend to react negatively to people who perpetuate that sort of work environment. Whenever I am in a position of authority, I do my absolute best to protect those in my charge from that sort of absolutely shitty treatment. Now that being said, I am not, in the least bit, defending Tom or his attitude. And I respect the HELL out of your work, Mr. Mullen. Even if you WERE a tyrant, which I highly doubt from all the stuff of yours I've read, there are some people, a few a very few, who deserve it, and you'd fit that bill. You definitely know what you are talking about. But this, unqualified, "I'm older than you, I have more credits than you, I've been doing this longer than you've been alive" thing is a classic logical fallacy better suited to political debates aimed at gaining the votes of the ignorant. Putting someone in their place I absolutely understand. But perpetuating what, frankly, should have died off in the McCarthy era, I find to be incredibly poor taste.

I take it you subscribe to that style of "leadership" too Satsuki. Not surprised. Yes it can, and no he is not working for either one of you. I certainly would not tolerate anyone in my lighting or camera department being treated that way, and I have the lawsuits to prove it, not just words on the internet.

Basically the number that follows the "ND" drops the period/full stop or comma depending on the language and the leading zero. ND [0.]3 ND [0.]6 etc. What this refers to is transmission value. Status A transmission goes down 50% (or 1 f/stop) every 0.3 of visual density increase in a filter. Just a different scale way of saying the same thing. Also, 0.15 is a half stop, 0.1 is a third of a stop. Hope this helps!

As far as "H8ful Eight" in 70mm is concerned, they just left the screen at the 1.85 size, unmated when they projected it at the Cinemark. Typical priorities for a Cinemark, gotta say. Really surprised they had the audacity to even run film again, after what they pulled with the Unions. I can't really see the allure of 2.20 vs. 2.35/9 just like the difference between 1.78 and 1.85 is subtle. What do they even do for that, just a slight crop? I've never seen a slight black letterboxing on any HDTV movie showings, even though I know there's some cropping going on.

A lot of TV shows aren't mastered at 4K. Yes I would say it is a total failure. I'm not sure how film, which has a finite number of silver grains (randomly-scattered picture elements of their own, although not limited depending on angle like a grid is) doesn't have a finite resolution. Also, realistically speaking, 500T film, 35mm, most certainly does not need higher than a 4K scan, maybe a down-sample. But it's not 6K. You're talkinga bout, at best, half of a 35mm still frame. About 1" x 3/4" There's no 24 megapixels/6K of resolution there, sorry. You might see some benefit in that higher-resolution scan, and, keep in mind, I'm most definitely a film guy, but let's not delude ourselves. I've heard ACs with decades of experience talking about how film is "10K!" No that's not correct, not correct at all. And resolution is not the most important thing, anyway.

See Stuart, you talk about being calm under pressure and then you make comments like "That's when you get fired." He's an inexperienced kid. Doesn't mean you need to flip out on him like a drill instructor. I don't have a lot of respect for that leadership "style" intimidation and beration. And you're not even paying the guy, yet.

Thank you for sharing, Jose! A very nice transfer. I'm amazed how good Super 8 looks.

Film has a real, finite resolution. Line pairs per millimeter. What do you want us to do, apologize that they are not convenient to digital terms and metrics? ;-) You get to a certain point with a scan where you don't see any appreciable increase in quality for the time and data expended. Film has a very real and finite resolution that corresponds to a megapixel count, whether you want to believe me or not. I have been scanning film for a long time, and there are charts available that show line pairs per millimeter if you want to independently confirm my observations. I do agree that the importance of resolution is overblown compared with color space and dynamic range.

"K's" are horizontal, so your figure isn't necessarily in disagreement. I remember getting in a long-winded argument with a projectionist who INSISTED that 2K was "twice the resolution" of 1080i, and this guy, in addition to running film had an engineering degree, I think. My observations of contact vs. DI prints are in agreement, too: With the exception of Super 35 blowups, the digital intermediate process hurt the resolution of film prints in theatres. Anecdotally, I know a projectionist who knows NOTHING about photography, not even the F/stops, and he said something along the lines, when I explained this to him "so THAT's why the movies aren't crisp when they're in focus anymore!" I saw a study, mind you this is from memory half a decade ago now, that said even 4K was beyond what most people could see on a TV at normal viewing distance. And a lot of TV shows are/were mastering at 2K. Has 3D TV caught on yet? ;-)

Tyler: Prior to the digital intermediate, not trying to nitpick too much, but it wsa higher. Want to say around 2500 lines, so around 2.5K. That's for a fourth generation print. A showprint pretty close to 3K, I'd say. I agree for the most part with your large format numbers, though.

Hopefully I am not retreading something I missed in a reply above, but the ANGULAR resolution of the human eye would not resolve 8K on a TV-sized screen. You have to realize that the resolution of the human eye is finite, and even 4K is pushing it. Not that this stops people from selling things and technologies (like "20 megapixel camera phones") from catching on anyway, but 4K is pushing it in terms of appreciable quality improvement. You would have to sit closeto a 4K screen to even see the difference between 4K and 2K (high def 1080P) anyway. Star Wars was projected digitally at only 2K. There is absolutely no need, whatsoever, to worry about "8K TV."

@Carl Looper I am sorry if I was not clear (as I guess special effects is now cinematography??). I was speaking only of the live action in BSG. Nothing against the space ships and battle sequences, although I for one did not care for the snap zooms. I didn't find them hard to watch. I was commenting on the camera work.

I bring up 3D animation as not being cinematography as a comparison of something else I don't understand, and someone wants to start that debate again. Unreal. Maybe I should start a debate as to why cinematography is really animation, then? Phil Rhodes: You say, far more eloquently, part of what I was trying to say. Thank you. There are a lot of DPs who got away with the film latitude with negative who did not understand the differences with digital. Absolutely unqualified people did and do get hired. It's not always a lot of skill, sometimes, even at the very top, it's who you know, who you're related to, and a lot of luck. . . Present company excluded, of course!

Still waiting B)